Bay 12 Games Forum

....we're not talking about books anymore, are we?

Books can be sexy, too.

The Romans were prone to genocide and completely Rome-centric. While they might've let all the silly little "barbarians" believe in whatever ridiculous version of the Roman pantheon they wanted, trying to portray them as any kind of benevolent rulers is just plain wrong.

It's also not even remotely what the book was saying, yes. Careful read: Benevolence has nothing to do with it, only tolerance and -- even more specific -- tolerance in comparison to other powers. Being nice people isn't the trick, it's all about being less violently xenophobic than the other big boys on the block.

The basic theory of the text is that tolerance -- again, in relation to other powers -- is the necessary (but obviously not sufficient, of course) condition for the formation of a hyperpower (something like Rome, Britain, some of the Chinese empires, the US, etc). Chua's other point is that the decline of tolerance in a culture marks the decline of the nation's status as hyperpower.  It's an interesting read, and the lady makes a pretty solid point without making sillyass claims like Rome or the Mongols were particularly benevolent.

*coughs* Mainiac, mainiac. Read Muz's post again. Pay especial attention to the first mini-paragraph, and the rest of the stuff in that last one.

I about had the same reaction, honestly, but then I looked a little more carefully

E: ... at least I hope Muz was talking about the simulation. Otherwise, carry-on.

E2: Anyway, to actually contribute something, the only thing I've read recently on Rome was this, which was pretty interesting. tl;dr version, Rome became powerful by being (comparatively) tolerant and its fall went hand in hand with a reduction in tolerance. The author's got a pretty compelling message, actually.

See? Reincarnation can be cheerful, too! All it'd take is violating a few cows or something, pretty easy. Probably be able to manage not to get caught without much effort, too. Good times all around and a next life you can get behind.

What's not to be terrified about your body breaking down and your mind slowly degenerating? Years ticking up is just kinda' meh, knowing that most of the things that make your life most vibrant (Your body, your mind) is going to increasing fail you and bring you immense and long term amounts of pain... that's frakking scary, really.

If age didn't involve the functioning of everything in your body starting to collapse, it wouldn't be troubling at all

E: Wait, what the hell is this doing in the happy thread?

Expand on this. It has potential.

I'm assuming you cook the ramen, pour the water out, then put the Dorito dust on.

Can just leave the water in, really, probably about the same effect as pouring in that powdered cheese that comes with cheap mac'n'cheese. Which tastes alright.

I haven't done that with ramen, but I have pulverized chips into both mashed potatoes and mac'n'cheese. Usually don't go all the way to actual dust, but pretty small, yeah. Mortar and pestle helps, is fun. S'good. Don't just have to use doritos, though! Crush up a few different kinds, toss it in for flavoring, texture, and body.

Secret of Frumplecooking: Take things you like. Cook them. Throw in same (big) bowl and stir. Not necessarily in that order. Eat all things with spoon.

... paper tastes worse than cooked, seasoned or unseasoned, cheap!ramen. Somewhat worse than uncooked ramen, too, really.

Honestly, paper just doesn't taste very good at all, not dry, not slightly chewed. I haven't tried paper with salt, so maybe that tastes better, I'unno.

But yeah, paper tastes bad. Just saying. The paper I've tried in my lifetime, anyway. ... which doesn't amount to much, really, but I have tasted a few different varieties and manufacturing methods over the years. Curiosity can be a terrible thing.

Animal crackers are alright, though, yeah. I haven't found as many things animal crackers can be cooked into decently, though.

One thing that occurred to me: Everyone's saying he should've tackled her, but what's saying he could've caught up to her? Taking the assumption that he "must've been out of shape if he couldn't" implies that any reasonably in-shape man should be able to catch any women, which is an... unfortunate assumption about women. Let's instead just not make assumptions; not about him, not about her.

*cough* There was a video. The suspect wasn't moving very fast, but the officer was moving even slower. That assumption or implication isn't happening. It's one of those things, y'know? I'm in shit-poor shape, but for a short period I could move -- have moved -- faster than she was. I've walked faster than that police officer was moving. Any reasonably in-shape person, gender irregardless, could have caught that suspect.

That being said, a cursory search is turning up that at least some states apparently don't have fitness requirements for active police officers, or at least not standardized ones. That definitely needs to change.

I still don't know enough about the situation to make any judgement calls on either the police officer or the suspect, but really it just boils down to this: If he violated standard procedure, he's guilty of at least negligent homicide, what with all the incompetence. If he didn't violate any procedure and was just following his training, then he's not guilty of anything and the blame should be shifted to badly written procedure.

Not guilty in the legal sense, definitely. Part of what's been said has been noting that even if the officer wasn't legally in the wrong, he was definitely guilty of immoral action -- especially in relation to the duties and responsibilities he's supposed to have

If he wasn't capable of doing the job, he shouldn't have it -- there is a moral burden for a person in a situation they're not forced in to to remove themselves from that situation if they're incapable of doing what needs to be done in regards to it. If you accept a job you can't do and fail at it, you are morally culpable for that; you've violated your promise. Lied to your employer, essentially. As a moral individual, the officer should have realized he was not physically able to perform at the standard necessary to uphold his duty -- regardless as to if that standard is written into law or not.

Stronger blame does fall on badly written procedure and poorly executed training, though, that's definitely true. The officer should not have been hired or allowed to stay hired, and whoever allowed that to happen has failed, professionally and morally.

Besides, what does demonizing this one dude accomplish? We can harp on bad apples... or we can discuss how to prevent the bad apples from doing damage like what happened here. The former is pointless. The latter is not.

There's actually a degree of point to showing social approbation for something seen as undesirable, but definitely finding a way to prevent stuff like that from occurring is both more important and more productive. We need some more accountability with this stuff, I guess.