I can understand and sympathize with generally minding one's own business, but social responsibility includes things like taxes, public services, voting, obeying the law, and not harassing your neighbors. You reject all of that, or you just don't enjoy all of it? I don't especially enjoy paying taxes, but I did benefit from public education, so fair's fair in my view.Blothulfur said:
Hmm... no one told me to shut up yet. So we continue...
@Knight
My argument is rather that in the heat of the moment it could be hard to tell a reformist statesman from a revolutionary. Just recall Augustus biography. Imagine that you are in Rome right when Augustus and his pals are proscribing senators and citizens to grab their possessions and finance their next civil war. Can you at that very moment discern that Augustus is a man marked by destiny and will bring peace and prosperity to Rome? What exactly separates him from Antony or whoever else was running around at the time?
The fact that he succeeded eventually is, as I said, a scant comfort if he's waging a civil war right now. Doubly so if it so happens that you are not going to see the glorious future because the Emperor took a dislike to your face. And I imagine triply so if the Emperor gets a dagger in the back and it turns out that he won't succeed after all. Which you don't know at the moment, the future is always uncertain.
What I'm saying is that killing people in the name of the glorious future is what a lot of revolutions do, and it is not an appealing proposition. Not to mention that Augustus converted a republic into an empire and that sounds pretty revolutionary to me. So what exactly is a difference between a reformist statesman and a revolutionary?
Also, to demonstrate how little comfort predictions bring if the current situation sucks, I'll make one right now. Your country will be fine in 15 years. Feel better? Didn't think so.
@Costin
I find it truly hard to believe that things in an European country, a member of EU can be worse than there were in 1986 Romania. Can you give examples?
As for the rest of your post. It's a sad fact that governments are always corrupt. It shouldn't come as a surprise to a historian. It is simply human nature. If you think that a democracy is corrupt, you should see some authoritarian governments. Believe me, they are worse. The only difference is that you're not allowed to complain about them being corrupt.
So if you manage to install another Antonescu, you'll get even more corruption. Even if the great leader is honest (unlikely but it could happen), what about his administration? Does Romania have a secret supply of incorruptible people that are just waiting to serve in the government? If it doesn't, then his government will be as corrupt as the current one is. Why not after all? If there exists some magic "Switch citizens to not corrupted mode" button, I'm afraid no one ever discovered it.
As far as historians being strangely callous with people's lives... I know that you know the body counts associated with various great leaders. That's why I'm puzzled that you're so dismissive. Since you are a historian you know how it works. Perhaps some of the people were truly standing in the way of progress, but by and large deaths are a result of power struggles, various feuds or a simple greed. It's not that Antonescu will come to you and say "Sorry Costin, the future of Romania demands your life" It is more likely that one of his cronies will have a grudge against you for looking at his girlfriend or something, so he'll send couple of his special guys to explain to you the error of your ways by kicking the crap out of you. And since they are likely the kind of people that like kicking, they might get overenthusiastic and kill you. "Well, he always looked kinda suspicious. Not like a person that the future (glorious) Romania needs." the guy will probably say. "No matter" the Emperor will answer "cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs."
That's what happens when you have unchecked authority. You're fine with that?
@Knight
My argument is rather that in the heat of the moment it could be hard to tell a reformist statesman from a revolutionary. Just recall Augustus biography. Imagine that you are in Rome right when Augustus and his pals are proscribing senators and citizens to grab their possessions and finance their next civil war. Can you at that very moment discern that Augustus is a man marked by destiny and will bring peace and prosperity to Rome? What exactly separates him from Antony or whoever else was running around at the time?
The fact that he succeeded eventually is, as I said, a scant comfort if he's waging a civil war right now. Doubly so if it so happens that you are not going to see the glorious future because the Emperor took a dislike to your face. And I imagine triply so if the Emperor gets a dagger in the back and it turns out that he won't succeed after all. Which you don't know at the moment, the future is always uncertain.
What I'm saying is that killing people in the name of the glorious future is what a lot of revolutions do, and it is not an appealing proposition. Not to mention that Augustus converted a republic into an empire and that sounds pretty revolutionary to me. So what exactly is a difference between a reformist statesman and a revolutionary?
Also, to demonstrate how little comfort predictions bring if the current situation sucks, I'll make one right now. Your country will be fine in 15 years. Feel better? Didn't think so.
@Costin
I find it truly hard to believe that things in an European country, a member of EU can be worse than there were in 1986 Romania. Can you give examples?
As for the rest of your post. It's a sad fact that governments are always corrupt. It shouldn't come as a surprise to a historian. It is simply human nature. If you think that a democracy is corrupt, you should see some authoritarian governments. Believe me, they are worse. The only difference is that you're not allowed to complain about them being corrupt.
So if you manage to install another Antonescu, you'll get even more corruption. Even if the great leader is honest (unlikely but it could happen), what about his administration? Does Romania have a secret supply of incorruptible people that are just waiting to serve in the government? If it doesn't, then his government will be as corrupt as the current one is. Why not after all? If there exists some magic "Switch citizens to not corrupted mode" button, I'm afraid no one ever discovered it.
As far as historians being strangely callous with people's lives... I know that you know the body counts associated with various great leaders. That's why I'm puzzled that you're so dismissive. Since you are a historian you know how it works. Perhaps some of the people were truly standing in the way of progress, but by and large deaths are a result of power struggles, various feuds or a simple greed. It's not that Antonescu will come to you and say "Sorry Costin, the future of Romania demands your life" It is more likely that one of his cronies will have a grudge against you for looking at his girlfriend or something, so he'll send couple of his special guys to explain to you the error of your ways by kicking the crap out of you. And since they are likely the kind of people that like kicking, they might get overenthusiastic and kill you. "Well, he always looked kinda suspicious. Not like a person that the future (glorious) Romania needs." the guy will probably say. "No matter" the Emperor will answer "cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs."
That's what happens when you have unchecked authority. You're fine with that?
Wow, that's quite a spread--a fair bit of almost everyone. Nice job.Renfri24 said:Yennefer (100%)
Angouleme (75%)
Cahir (75%)
Ciri (75%)
Emhyr (75%)
Geralt (75%)
Regis (50%)
Jaskier (25%)
Milva (25%)
Triss Merigold (0%)
@Not_Slimgrin
Since a few of us started debating the merits of Emhyr as a person and a leader. I was definitely one of the instigators, and it sort of blew up. Sorry about that. Is now a good time to mention that I keep scoring a combination of Triss and Cahir on the quiz?
You will never be able to know for certain and to imply that any system can provide that certainty is an illusion. Especially when you are in the middle of a civil war.grregg said:
If you are talking about during the proscriptions, then what would have been evident is that the Triumvirate was much better positioned to bring peace and order and avenge Caesar's death, which was the case. Most people naturally trusted the Populares and would rather have them united then face civil war. It is faulty to single out Augustus during that period as he was part of an alliance.
Now as for later. It's pretty self evident who from within the Triumvirate was the best candidate available. Marc Antony was a drunken imbecile who kept showing off his Egyptian-philia. Lepidus was an insignificant weakling from the very beginning, evidenced from the fact that he got North Africa to rule, the least important province. And you had Augustus, the heir of Caesar, the man who kept giving his money to help people (as opposed to Antony) and who eventually beat Sextus Pompei and Lepidus. During which he also started construction projects in Rome.
Now what was in doubt was Augustus' military capacity, but it would have been pretty evident who between Augustus and Antony was best for Rome as a statesman (everyone knew Antony was a general and not a statesman).
So in the context of a civil war, where it is obviously going to be chaotic and full of confusion, one could still discern who was the best candidate from the options available, without of course knowing with a 100% certainty.
What is appealing to you is irrelevant to what is necessary to do in a civil war or crisis and re-imposing law and order. Killing people happens to be a necessity in a lot of situations and we can complain all we want, but that's reality. Yes, even in today's world that you seem to think is so much different than the past. A premise I disagree with, I think humans as a species haven't changed a bit. In fact this perspective seems very First World centric. When their governments collapse and they face poverty and civil war, they will be capable of the same brutality as they and everyone did in the past. In otherwords it's easy to claim a moral highground and understanding when one lives in prosperity, with law and peace. All it takes is one push and they will do what human history is full of. I am sure Enlightnment thinkers thought that times changed and that now people are going to become better, and reality slapped them in the face a few decades later. The only systemic change that happened is the birth of modern states that are much more capable of monopolizing power and violence.
As for Augustus not being a revolutionary. A revolution in the classic meaning of the term, which is how I am using it, means an overthrowal of the system and paradigm of governance via a popular uprising motivated by ideological and / or economic and / or social factors.
That's not what Augustus did. Augustus took control of the system and gradually (and slowly) changed it from within, all the while claiming and showing that he is turning it back to the way it was. He did not lead a popular revolt and uprising at all. And he did not kill when he won the civil war and started to reform the system. His ruthless phase was when he was consolidating his power and fighting a bloody civil war, not when he was reforming the system.
If you use the word "revolutionary" to mean someone who changed things a lot, then yea of course Augustus is a revolutionary. But saying that lacks nuance and doesn't distinguish him as a reformist statesman, which is what he was.
@Kyogen. True but in my philosophy, I do those things because it is the right thing to do, rather than the will of society (and from fear of punishment). It's splitting hairs really, but I liken it to religion: I do not "behave" because some omniscient and omnipotent bearded bloke will let me into his happy club when I die, or punish me with eternal hellfire if i'm naughty. I follow a code of conduct because it is the right thing to do, and I expect no reward for this other than my own peace of mind.
I can go along with that. We're probably using the term "social responsibility" in somewhat different ways, anyway. I didn't mean it in the sense of legal requirements.Blothulfur said:
A creepy old man inviting little people into his happy club, huh? I hope I don't think of that the next time I have to attend a church wedding or funeral. I'll laugh at exactly the wrong time.
You don't understand jack shit how the Securitate ( read up on that btw if you don't what it was ) worked in the communist era then. Yes this is the point where I ask you to shut the hell up about things you don't bloody understand since you haven't lived them.
As for life being better in an EU member, LOL. There's benefits, there's downsides to each system. What most people see is that we traded a regime that monitored our lives and dictated them with another that openly steals from us while mocking us and doing NOTHING to improve anything in our country. There's very little we see as having been improved.
You know what Ceausecu's son said about his father after he was deposed? "Thirty years from now you will barely be painting the things my father made." He was damned right.
Do the words "Mineriad" ring a bloody bell perhaps?
The recent protests in my country have been dubbed "anti-austerity". Yeah I bet people are not in streets because our president is a lying scumbang who won the elections through what most people feel was fraud and who sold off our merchant fleet and is well off while he cuts down our salaries while ignoring parliament by using a loophoole in system that allowed them to use emergency ordinances to pass laws.
Let that sink in for a bit about how "democracy" works in Romania. If you randomly ask a person, even old people who lived through World War II, if there is any democracy in Romania, most will just laugh a bit and say "No".
If I was living under communist Romania then yes of course I wouldn't be able to talk about the things I talked about in this thread without getting arrested and you know what? One can live very well without discussing politics.
I do want a better system then the communist one or this piss of a democracy.
You know what? You guys need to start a new thread on European politics. Stop this bullshit.
I guess I should be thankful this thread hasn't been locked.
Yes it was massively derailed from the Emhyr discussion, the point was that no good ruler was a ever nice guy. Sure you can classify them as sociopaths, but that doesn't matter. There is nothing worse at the end of the day then living under moderate leaders with literary no vision in mind for the progress of their nation and who's slated goal seems to be robbing their nation of what little they have left.
Yes it was massively derailed from the Emhyr discussion, the point was that no good ruler was a ever nice guy. Sure you can classify them as sociopaths, but that doesn't matter. There is nothing worse at the end of the day then living under moderate leaders with literary no vision in mind for the progress of their nation and who's slated goal seems to be robbing their nation of what little they have left.
1 Regis (100%)
2 Milva (89%)
3 Triss (89%)
4 Jaskier (60%) Bleh...
Haven’t read most of the books tho (got distracted by asoiaf) so I’m not sure if this is a good or bad thing yet.
2 Milva (89%)
3 Triss (89%)
4 Jaskier (60%) Bleh...
Haven’t read most of the books tho (got distracted by asoiaf) so I’m not sure if this is a good or bad thing yet.
I answered truthfully, but I put "not sure" for quite a few of the questions. Like the question about how I prefer to fight -- in games I usually prefer using swords instead of ranged weapons, but in real life I'm tiny so I'd get my ass kicked if I ever tried to beat anyone up and I'm not convinced I could even lift a sword XD So I chose "not sure" for that question.Saoe said:
Nah, you'd just have to get the right kind of sword and then, well... stick 'em with the pointy end.WardDragon said:
Needn't be a disadvantage to be small and quick.@Topic:
Ended up with
Cahir 100%
Geralt 100%
Milva 100%.
Not sure of what exactly to make of Milva, I don't remember that much of her and will pay special attention when next reading the books. But I guess I'm very content with the other two.
Geralt 100%
Angouleme, Cahir,Ciri amd Milva 80%
Emyhr, Regis and Triss 40%
Angouleme, Cahir,Ciri amd Milva 80%
Emyhr, Regis and Triss 40%
Geralt (100%)
Cahir (72%)
Milva (58%)
Triss Merigold (43%)
Regis (15%)
Yennefer (15%)
Angouleme (0%)
No idea who Cahir, Milva or Angouleme are, but I guess I will find out shortly as I'm going to finally catch up with the fan translations starting next week.
Cahir (72%)
Milva (58%)
Triss Merigold (43%)
Regis (15%)
Yennefer (15%)
Angouleme (0%)
No idea who Cahir, Milva or Angouleme are, but I guess I will find out shortly as I'm going to finally catch up with the fan translations starting next week.