Donnadogsoth

You might also have psychology and lore skills giving the players insight into the nature of the monsters they encounter, so that they will know if it is merely defending its territory, or is incorrigibly malevolent, or follows a strange religious code.

Hi David, Fellow TRPG GM here, and my specialty was post-holocaust games. Question: are you basing your book on a campaign you ran, or is it being cut out of whole cloth?

If you don't care then debate is over.

The argument I've used for a while now is that nothing that changes can be aeternal, by definition. Things that change, change. Things that are aeternal, do not. Since the universe changes, it cannot be aeternal and therefore cannot have existed forever, and therefore must flow from a true aeternal creator. No one has wiggled out of this other than by saying "nah-ah!" but I'll do you all a favour and wiggle out of it myself: suppose change is really just a matter of perspective, that our consciousness allows us to see contrasts in succeeding units of spacetime, when in reality, at the highest reality, there is no change. Everything that has been, is, or ever will be already exists all at once, and so is part of this aeternal aspect of the universe. No supernatural aeternal creator necessary. There, I've shot myself in the theological foot. Happy? Or have I made a logical error?

I guess if you banish the stupidest person in your family from the household its average IQ rises.

Yeah yeah, where do you want us to go, richard?

This sort of thinking crops up when we treat Christianity as a mythology rather than simply looking to the Catechism to see what the Church actually believes. In the latter is where we will find out the answer to the nature of the devil as a fallen angel. This is also where we understand that the devil is merely an angel, who freely rebelled against God and who works against God by trying to undermine humanity. Analysing Christianity outside of this understanding, or kindred understandings in Protestantism and Orthodoxy, is simply lying about what the Church actually believes and trying to use rhetorical legerdemain to imply there is a different metaphysical reality that the Church "really" believes and is just lying about to itself and to its congregations.

Lucifer had an alternative, which was himself. God didn't need to create Super-Lucifer in order to give Lucifer a choice.

If you've reclaimed your Roman Catholic roots you should be cognizant that original sin will prevent any anarchy from succeeding. What's Russia got that we ain't got?

Why should we respect the love of God? To respect something means to have fear and pride regarding it. We respect the bear because it can harm us, but we also respect it because it is a joy of creation, whether we want to call that creative force Nature or God. The bear is a work of art, it is an expression and a beauty. So, we take a reflected pride in that, pride being joy in accomplishment. So, if we're dealing with the creative force taken as a whole and applied to our own lives, we find it worthy of fear--because it can harm us--and also pride--because, as Shakespeare said, What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, howinfinite in faculties, in form and moving how express andadmirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how likea god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—. . . Apply this to the love of God, the creative force taking an active interest in human affairs, down to the last man, woman, and child. Then what accomplishment is there to take pride in? Men weep for Christ, for the "babe the son of Mary", not out of fear but, I think, out of an acknowledgement of Christ's worthiness. The accomplishment of God, in what way is it proud? Are not matters of pride also matters of effort? If someone could fart out the Mona Lisa would we take pride in their pride, their joy of accomplishment? The idea of an omnipotent being thereby taking legitimate pride in something seems silly. Let's say however that God decided to do something hard, namely the Incarnation and its sequels, for the sake of mankind. Then that would be a point of pride for him, and for us as well. And if Creation couldn't exist without the Incarnation as part of it, both being created as a whole simultaneously, then all of Creation participates in the pride of Christ's presence, sacrifice and overcoming. This gives us something to take pride in, in a secondary sense like how we might take pride in race or country. We weep not because we are afraid, but because our hopes are touched by the immensity of meaning--love by God--which the "newborn king" symbolises and embodies. It is the "hopes and fears of all the years" compressed into a single helpless and tiny form laid in a feeding trough amidst a stinking barn. The true spirit of Christmas therefore exists as a sense of respect for the beauty of being loved by the creative force at the heart of it all, the sense that despite all the wretchedness, "all will be well."

Thanks for the goad to clarification, smarterthanone. I was referring to violent rapes, the gun-to-the-head sort. At the other end of the spectrum would be your 17/18 statutory rape example. The law can figure out the punishments along the spectrum between these two extremes. I recommend violent rapists be put to death.

You must agree, however, that it is possible to fail to convict a rapist on numerous grounds, and so the accuser should not automatically be convicted of false accusation in those cases. The rapist may get off on a technicality, or for lack of evidence, or is just living inside "a reasonable doubt". Should we then prosecute their accusers, who deserve a fair trial just as must as the man accused of rape is?

Where do people get the idea that should there be a collapse then Anarchy's going to kick in?

I see it as nature versus artifice. Most biological men and biological women require no artifice to look and act their sex and function reproductively. Transsexuals require extensive medical intervention to look the way they want to look, and remain unable to reproduce except by turning the father/mother dyad upside down (I've read of transsexual couples where "daddy" bears the child). Disgust at mutilation is natural. Heterosexual men are being groomed.

If the penalty for rape is death (which I recommend), do you think false accusers should be put to death?

I caution anyone against proposing Draconian sentences, because it creates a ripple effect in the justice system, to the point where stealing a pack of gum is punished by amputation of the thief's hand. Some people might approve of that, but I don't want to live in a society that is horrifically punitive. Better that women who falsely accuse get automatically charged with slander and dealt with that way. If slander laws need beefing up that's another consideration.

1.Germany. 2.Germany. 3.Germany. 4.Everyone in a policeman's territory will have signed a contract governing his behaviour. 5.Only needs a contract (subject to stipulations in one's community contract). 6.Yes or no, as subject to the local community contract and drone-mounted AI. 7.No. Suck it up or leave. 8.Yes or no, as subject to community contract. 9.Minus 9 months. 10.If someone cuts your finger off you ought to do a lot more than just retaliate equally. What are you an ancient Israelite? But of course this is all subject to the local community contract.

Something about this "always believe women" meme strikes me as women transferring the belief in them that their male relations would normally have, to their daddy government. Government should always believe women in this idea. Cue ropes and shotguns. Imagine the savings! No more trials, no more judges and prisons, just a lynch mob, a pussy hat, and some dumb schmuck who pinched a woman's ass on a dare.

I mean that this tension must exist in general. I don't have any sociological statistics on it, but I'm confident it exists. I disagree. Given than the mind enfolds the body and not vice versa, it is the mind that is primary, not the body. The body and other physical experiences are just elements in the mind. Which means that we are “standing invisibly” next to everyone that ever lived. Without ultimate justice and mercy my concern for man flags. If it all ends in death anyway then what was the point. . . https://twitter.com/ZJemptv/status/881284028548173824?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fgregp-3534%2F2017%2F07%2F02%2Fits-part-of-her-body-trans-activist-tells-straight-guys-to-start-dating-trans-women%2F Why is heterosexuality a coercive evil? You're telling me that males in traditional male roles and females in traditional female roles is equivalent to rape and slavery? A friend of mine talks about “transcendental degeneration,” the concept that the human body is the perfect form in the universe and that all other forms descend from or are degenerations of the human form. Man did not rise from ape, metaphysically speaking, ape descended from man. In this Platonic sense then the human mind is ideally adapted to the human body, though in some cases this isn't a perfect connection. Still it gives us the inkling of a “divine human form” that should not be deformed or mutilated.

"Our continent is wracked by guilt, tiredness, existential exhaustion, a whole range of things that means we're very vulnerable to anyone who says it's all our fault." --Douglas Murray

"Cultures that do not progress, die, because they cease to be human." --Jason Ross

No. I mean the anti-white nature of modern Christianity, that either ignores or actively promotes non-white colonisation of the West. I'm asking about today, how does the EU go against the British imperial interest? Aren't all of these political factions essentially one at the top: the IMF, World Bank, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group. CFR, Wall Street, London, Davos, and probably etc—they're all linked together, so it's unreal to suggest that the EU is a fully independent body that can defy British interests. They're all in bed together. Are they all Jewish controlled? You're presuming the Alt Right is in direct opposition to British imperialism. Suppose it's not, and it's tolerated the way Hitler was tolerated (and even helped into power by London bankers), in order to set up a gang/countergang between Left and Right and so help destabilise society? Also, if some British aristocrats care, then why are there only the few outliers who are doing something about it? Have Jewish-British oligarchs got a complete lock on power? I'm not prepared to believe the entire gentile oligarchy is helpless before the might of the Jews. You seem to be saying that is the case. If the Jews as a race or quasi-race, a people if you will, are like this, are you arguing they are all like this, or that a few of their least scrupulous and most intelligent members are taking advantage of their immunity to criticism, their group solidarity, their invisibility, their group identity as victims, their wealth, and their organisational acumen, to promote an anti-Western agenda? Why are those members like this? I appreciate that. My recommendation for you is the geometry detector. That the history of the West, one that in large part defines it, is between the republicanism of Solon versus the oligarchism of Babylon. That these two philosophies, which hold competing and mutually incompatible definitions of man, one of man as made in the image of God, the other of man as being as a beast of the field, to be controlled and bred and culled by master-beasts, intertwine through the centuries like snakes. Here's a video, unfortunately with very low volume, which addresses the British Question. A better presentation of the same material: Lord Palmerston's Multicultural Zoo

Yet religion and race appear to conflict. I am unwilling to sacrifice either for the sake of the other. Can they not be reconciled? The British attack on scientific fundamentals, on the nature of man, and on classical art, all subcontracted through scientists, philosophers, and artists. Science has been reduced to mere empiricism and irrationalistic dogmas like statistical quantum probability and climate hysteria/ecologism (Prince Philip and the World Wildlife Fund), propaganda and popular entertainment and philosophy has reduced man to animal-like status, and art has been ripped free of its mooring of the good, the true, and the beautiful and so drifted into dark waters of weirdness, eros, whim, the interesting, and the ugly. All this has to do with London and Wall Street money. Is the EU functionally separate from the British empire, or is it like a weaker Siamese twin?--in other words, in what way does the EU go against the desires of the British empire? The British imperialists don't care about displaced white minorities. As you said, follow the money: Who financed Lenin and Trotsky?

What rights and duties do God's chosen people have? Must we sacrifice bulls to Jehovah? Smith and Marx were encouraged and used by the British as part of their war on civilisation. Smith's purpose was to destroy American sovereignty by preventing it from putting in place protectionist measures to allow it to transform from being merely a backwater resource pool to an industrial power. Marx was deployed to destroy continental unity in Europe. These ideologies got splashed around and came into conflict, but the essential was there: damage the sovereign nation-state and especially destroy America as a world power and stop the unification of Europe as an economic entity, both of which were threatening the economic hegemony of Britain. Do the Jews of Aristocratic lineage even think of themselves as Jews? Do they think and act in any way resembling how "commoner" Jews think and act?