Elerond
-
Posts
2620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Elerond
-
-
"Ydwin, our eighth and final companion (we hope!), is a pale elf rogue/cipher with extensive training as an animancer. She was born in a remote, lawless settlement in the White that Wends, where she witnessed the cruelest extremes of kith and nature. Her observations fueled a fascination with animancy, and she eventually made her way to the Vailian Republics to study. She's since become an accomplished master in the field, and advances with luminous adra in the Deadfire have drawn her to the archipelago."
Rogue/Cipher is a weird choice, she doesn't seem to have had a childhood without monetary power, a difficult childhood? Yes but not without money, maybe she had to crack some skulls but... she had money. Why she had money? Because she had the money to study animancy in the Vailian Republics! If the lore is correct that seems to be really expensive. So why rogue? She robbed the money? A animancer that has time to pick pocket people? Doesn't seem right. Maybe fighter/cipher, because she looks like a duelist and a fighter/cipher looks like a cool concept, and, let be honest, everyone will use Edér as a tank again... so a dps fighter would not be redundant.
Her briefly introduction has shown once again that she is more interesting than both of the new companions that obsidian showed... really strange choice to have her in the 5 million stretch goal, why not at 4.25? Or maybe they know we liked her so that is why they are pushing her to the 5 million...
Rogue don't mean thief necessary in PoE.
"In Pillars of Eternity, the designation of a character as a "rogue" signifies their vicious, brutal style of fighting, not a propensity for theft or deception. More than any other class, rogues exemplify the adage that the best defense is a good offense. If fighters are the disciplined, reliable, well-trained units that hold the line, rogues are the shock troops that attempt to break through that line to take out vulnerable units before they can effectively retaliate. When pinned down, rogues can suffer from their weak defenses, but ideally they carry their momentum from one target to the next in short order."
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/732064
-
and yeah, val's argument sucked. we got far more functional freedom today than 100 or even 50 years ago.
Whoa whoa, I've seen a lot of Westerns, and you could totally get away with a lot of cool stuff back then. Isn't that why Westworld was so popular?
In a bit more serious vein, I was researching my great grandfather recently for a little project, and in the 1935 census he had taken on two borders. They were both teachers, and they didn't have to pay taxes! I was jealous. But then it said they made $496 that year, so it was a bit of a wash.
Hey, that is about $9000 in today's money
EDIT: Ninjaded by Gfted1
-
1
-
-
What if the nose job is for a deviated septum?
Not even that - how about for body dysphoria? It's not as though body dysphoria is only limited to sex changes, so if somebody has extreme enough body dysphoria over their nose...or any other number of things...should the taxpayer pay for that? If body dysphoria is good enough for a sex change, it should be good enough for a "nose job", right? ...In practice, I'm not sure as to the answer of this. The cases like that SHOULD be extremely rare...but that's not the point - it is, as Guard Dog said, the principle of it: what kinds of things should or shouldn't be covered by health insurance, particularly publicly-funded health insurance (or whatever you'd call the equivalent)? Again, I'm not totally sure of the answer to it: it's a very complicated subject and problem.
If psychiatrist/s chosen by state tells that best way to ensure person mental well being means that they need nose job then I personally would be okay for state to cover such surgery for their employees from taxes. If state do not trust to recommendations that said doctor/s gives then they of course should replace said doctor/s with new one/s.
I mean my principle is that I am not medical professional with enough expertise to judge what is necessary and best way and what is not to ensure somebody's well being, which is why I and so many other people pay to people that have actually studied subject in such extent that they can call themselves as experts. So question should not be what procedures government subsidies for their employees but how critical the need for medical treatment need to be it to be important enough that it will be subsidized. It is also worth to note that one effective way to save in state's health care costs is to minimize need for long term care. So if one nose job will prevent person needing years worth of psychiatric care/medication that has even lower change to work then it would be wasting tax payers money not to give that nose job for that person. Of course there is of course the question should state employees even receive subsidies that other state's residents don't receive.
-
3
-
-
You joking? You telling me the Finnish government is trying to reverse gay marriage in Finland, what was the outcome ?
I think the rights of the gay citizens of any country should be more important than trying to integrate immigrantsBut arent we facing a hopeless outcome of inevitable violence if you right, we both admit some of the refugees dont have the same life they had in Syria and this is to expected. Countries like Sweden and Finland are not Syria and never will be, so if the outcome to end violence is " we need to address there core grievance " which is not possible, then surely we are saying " there will always be violence " as we cannot make certain immigrants happy
I consider that an unacceptable corollary to immigrants coming to our Western countries ?
The thing is that those things can be address those grievances but there are things that are higher on importance list for those who decide things, like fighting over if gays can marry or not, for billionth time.
Citizens rights IMO should always come first in most cases
But the thing is we increased marriage right to include same sex unions several years ago, this year our new government wanted to take that back just month before the new law come in effect.
It was rejected not so surprisingly, meaning that law change will come effect in beginning of next month
-
1
-
-
I think the rights of the gay citizens of any country should be more important than trying to integrate immigrantsBut arent we facing a hopeless outcome of inevitable violence if you right, we both admit some of the refugees dont have the same life they had in Syria and this is to expected. Countries like Sweden and Finland are not Syria and never will be, so if the outcome to end violence is " we need to address there core grievance " which is not possible, then surely we are saying " there will always be violence " as we cannot make certain immigrants happy
I consider that an unacceptable corollary to immigrants coming to our Western countries ?
The thing is that those things can be address those grievances but there are things that are higher on importance list for those who decide things, like fighting over if gays can marry or not, for billionth time.
Citizens rights IMO should always come first in most cases
But the thing is we increased marriage right to include same sex unions several years ago, this year our new government wanted to take that back just month before the new law come in effect.
-
But arent we facing a hopeless outcome of inevitable violence if you right, we both admit some of the refugees dont have the same life they had in Syria and this is to expected. Countries like Sweden and Finland are not Syria and never will be, so if the outcome to end violence is " we need to address there core grievance " which is not possible, then surely we are saying " there will always be violence " as we cannot make certain immigrants happyFair enough, you make some valid reasons why immigrants could be unhappy in a first world Western country
But I'm not completely convinced this somehow justifies them committing acts of violence as people who have been invited and welcomed to live in another country. So you can be angry but that shouldn't translate to acts of violence and public criminality ?
Acts of violence and public criminality isn't never acceptable, which is why looking causes behind people's actions is important step in help to find ways to prevent more such happening in future.
I consider that an unacceptable corollary to immigrants coming to our Western countries ?
The thing is that those things can be address those grievances but there are things that are higher on importance list for those who decide things, like fighting over if gays can marry or not, for billionth time.
-
Fair enough, you make some valid reasons why immigrants could be unhappy in a first world Western countryBut dont you think its worse to see people who left there own country for various reason and immigrated to a first world Western country, which provides examples of some of the best qualities of life, and then those immigrants still complain and are angry?
In other words I have no issues with citizens in a country complaining unreasonably but I have an issue when a country takes in immigrants and its small groups of those immigrants complaining.,.,.they can always go home ?
Dont you think its inconsistent ?
It depends what you think are those examples of some of the best qualities of life are? The life of immigrants especially refugees isn't really nothing to speak about when it comes to quality of life. Most Syrians for example had much better quality of life before their civil war than what they get here in Finland and I don't believe that situation is any better in Sweden. Like for example we don't let them work even if they want, we put them in centers/housing areas where they don't have little contact with natives, which don't have really any activities, especially in evenings. They are usually put in with people from lots of other countries. It is all planned to be temporal, but then decade past and nothing changes, except that they need to share their living quarters with more people.
Of course above isn't faith that everybody faces but it is faith that lots of those who are angriest share.
But I'm not completely convinced this somehow justifies them committing acts of violence as people who have been invited and welcomed to live in another country. So you can be angry but that shouldn't translate to acts of violence and public criminality ?
Acts of violence and public criminality isn't never acceptable, which is why looking causes behind people's actions is important step in help to find ways to prevent more such happening in future.
-
But dont you think its worse to see people who left there own country for various reason and immigrated to a first world Western country, which provides examples of some of the best qualities of life, and then those immigrants still complain and are angry?There are lots of things to complain and when those things are solved there are more things to complain.
Like for example why some native Finns (about 200 people) were so angry that they felt need to riot on our independence day by throwing rocks towards police, purposefully trying to hurt police horses and break their legs, breaking shop windows, stealing stuff, and vandalizing places. They gave multiple reason why they did what they did, they said that they don't get enough money from government, government don't give them enough jobs, president is idiot, rich should not have parties paid from tax Euros, etc..
When people feel that their life sucks some of them will always find reasons to cause damage to others or their properties like that somehow would make their life better if other people are also miserable.
In other words I have no issues with citizens in a country complaining unreasonably but I have an issue when a country takes in immigrants and its small groups of those immigrants complaining.,.,.they can always go home ?
Dont you think its inconsistent ?
It depends what you think are those examples of some of the best qualities of life are? The life of immigrants especially refugees isn't really nothing to speak about when it comes to quality of life. Most Syrians for example had much better quality of life before their civil war than what they get here in Finland and I don't believe that situation is any better in Sweden. Like for example we don't let them work even if they want, we put them in centers/housing areas where they don't have little contact with natives, which don't have really any activities, especially in evenings. They are usually put in with people from lots of other countries. It is all planned to be temporal, but then decade past and nothing changes, except that they need to share their living quarters with more people.
Of course above isn't faith that everybody faces but it is faith that lots of those who are angriest share.
-
1
-
-
Yeah Trump would not had looked like an idiot if he had just dropped last night from his speech, but now all the defenses for his speech just come out as weak excuses.
Do you know what new happen that riots started?
Edit2: People seem to be angry about their life and said arrest seems to have worked as convenient excuse to release that anger in the violent and nonconstructive way that is typical for some people regardless of their origin.
What complaints would immigrants have living in such a generous country as Sweden have that they are angry? What are they angry about ?
There are lots of things to complain and when those things are solved there are more things to complain.
Like for example why some native Finns (about 200 people) were so angry that they felt need to riot on our independence day by throwing rocks towards police, purposefully trying to hurt police horses and break their legs, breaking shop windows, stealing stuff, and vandalizing places. They gave multiple reason why they did what they did, they said that they don't get enough money from government, government don't give them enough jobs, president is idiot, rich should not have parties paid from tax Euros, etc..
When people feel that their life sucks some of them will always find reasons to cause damage to others or their properties like that somehow would make their life better if other people are also miserable.
-
Yeah Trump would not had looked like an idiot if he had just dropped last night from his speech, but now all the defenses for his speech just come out as weak excuses.
Do you know what new happen that riots started?
Swedish police arrested somebody and people with masks started riot by throwing rocks towards police. It ended when police shot towards rioters. And later in same evening people started to riot again by breaking shop windows, burning cars and they battered some people. Police estimates that about 30-50 people were behind the riots.
Police is investigating three claims of rioting, two claims of battering, several cases of theft and vandalism
EDIT: More details what Swedish police said about riots in their press conference.
Edit2: People seem to be angry about their life and said arrest seems to have worked as convenient excuse to release that anger in the violent and nonconstructive way that is typical for some people regardless of their origin.
-
Yeah Trump would not had looked like an idiot if he had just dropped last night from his speech, but now all the defenses for his speech just come out as weak excuses.
-
2
-
-
So its just the appearance change? I presumed he went through the whole thing.
Most of the transition is done via hormone therapy, which actually does most of the changes in the body. Actually surgery is mainly needed for artificial genitalia. Although some people want to use surgery to remove or enhance their masculine/feminine qualities or make transition faster, as hormone therapy takes several years if it even works in first place and don't kill the person or fail to cause visible changes.
-
I think you make a typo than:
I have vowed to uphold my country's constitution and I have now plans to break that vow.
So in scenarios where I am either in position to sent 40k people to back in Africa where they are determined to face near certain death or somebody else is in sending them back, which in either cases would be against Finland's constitution, my stance is that I would uphold my country's constitution in best of my ability as I have vowed to do. To my answer it doesn't matter if best of my ability would be actually make decisions about subject or only just protest against decisions that other people are making, because not being against breaking our constitution regardless of fact is it me or somebody else that is breaking it would be against the vow that I have taken, so not to break said vow, it is my duty to be against such action.
Did this broader answer help you understand my point or did it make it more difficult for you?
Jesus man I get it, but you probably is still unable to read that your sentence
Okay I see it has typo, no is now, okay I get it you got me okay
-
But there is no asylum seekers from South Sudan in Finland, so I can't say what is the situation there really for people. Especially not when it comes to things like which parts of South Sudan are considered dangerous, what demographics are systemically persecuted on so on. But usually big parts of African countries are safe for majority of their people to live and majority of their people don't even suffer from famine. Also we give billions of Euros to African countries that are suffering from famine so that they would be able to solve their crisis by themselves, meaning that we don't count famine in many case as reason for giving asylum for people, because we count that they can survive with aid that we and other countries give to their country, too bad for them if their government is corrupt and don't give that aid to them.
Yeah pumping cash to already overgrowing yet starving population worked so far very well xD
Also I already mention that to get to EU from these parts of Africa require large amount of cash. That is why you don't have them in a doorway, but it seems it doesn't bother you as far as they are far away
Them not getting in Finland is different question than is it unconstitutional sent them back. There is no constitutional obligation to help people to come in Finland and seek asylum, but if they are here, we have constitutional obligation to make sure that we don't sent them to their death. It is not mater if something bothers me, but what is our constitution and obligations that it put over us.
I give every year over 20k Euros for different aid organization that help poor people in Africa and other parts of the world, if that kind information is important to you.
-
I have vowed to uphold my country's constitution and I have now plans to break that vow.
not sure if I follow
It is unconstitutional in Finland to sent anybody back in situation where they most likely end up dead.
Still don't follow, how are you going to break it? (BTW you are in military?)
You know that Finland has universal male conscription, and everybody that does their constitutional service in our Defense Force vows to uphold Finland's constitution.
OK, we have abolished that years ago, still don't know how you are supposed to break it, so far it seems you were upholding it...
"Well its your view. I for one would vouch for 40K people from Africa to go back with posibility to die than let anyone from my circle get raped. And I am not ashamed of it. Are you sure about your view on it?"
It was answer to this
I think you make a typo than:
I have vowed to uphold my country's constitution and I have now plans to break that vow.
So in scenarios where I am either in position to sent 40k people to back in Africa where they are determined to face near certain death or somebody else is in sending them back, which in either cases would be against Finland's constitution, my stance is that I would uphold my country's constitution in best of my ability as I have vowed to do. To my answer it doesn't matter if best of my ability would be actually make decisions about subject or only just protest against decisions that other people are making, because not being against breaking our constitution regardless of fact is it me or somebody else that is breaking it would be against the vow that I have taken, so not to break said vow, it is my duty to be against such action.
Did this broader answer help you understand my point or did it make it more difficult for you?
-
I have vowed to uphold my country's constitution and I have now plans to break that vow.
not sure if I follow
It is unconstitutional in Finland to sent anybody back in situation where they most likely end up dead.
Still don't follow, how are you going to break it? (BTW you are in military?)
You know that Finland has universal male conscription, and everybody that does their constitutional service in our Defense Force vows to uphold Finland's constitution.
OK, we have abolished that years ago, still don't know how you are supposed to break it, so far it seems you were upholding it...
"Well its your view. I for one would vouch for 40K people from Africa to go back with posibility to die than let anyone from my circle get raped. And I am not ashamed of it. Are you sure about your view on it?"
It was answer to this
-
Not accepting refugees = "likely sending them to die"? Oh lordy.
Who decides which situations qualify for "forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead"?
People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin.
Well people in Africa die on daily basis, are you going to move whole Africa to Finland? Or only the lucky one which have enough cash to actually reach Finland?
People die daily basis, but most Africans aren't in danger to die daily basis, so they don't qualify for refugee status and will be sent back to their country of origin. Only Somalia is country in Africa where Finland don't sent people back currently.
Oh yeah they do, that was my point. Are you sure you are going to send back central africans?
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/
Difficult to say because there isn't any to sent back, so there is no analyse what it means for people that are sent back there. Because all the analyzes are done case by case there isn't general rules. Although war zones and countries like Somalia that don't have stable government are nearly in every case seen too dangerous. Although we return people to Iraq as only parts of the country are considered dangerous, even though it is in state of war.
What are you talking about? There is tons of countries in Africa which are in war state. South Sudan for example is in war for years, now there is Famine crisis. Every second country in Africa is in constant turmoil...
But there is no asylum seekers from South Sudan in Finland, so I can't say what is the situation there really for people. Especially not when it comes to things like which parts of South Sudan are considered dangerous, what demographics are systemically persecuted on so on. But usually big parts of African countries are safe for majority of their people to live and majority of their people don't even suffer from famine. Also we give billions of Euros to African countries that are suffering from famine so that they would be able to solve their crisis by themselves, meaning that we don't count famine in many case as reason for giving asylum for people, because we count that they can survive with aid that we and other countries give to their country, too bad for them if their government is corrupt and don't give that aid to them.
-
I have vowed to uphold my country's constitution and I have now plans to break that vow.
not sure if I follow
It is unconstitutional in Finland to sent anybody back in situation where they most likely end up dead.
Still don't follow, how are you going to break it? (BTW you are in military?)
You know that Finland has universal male conscription, and everybody that does their constitutional service in our Defense Force vows to uphold Finland's constitution.
-
Not accepting refugees = "likely sending them to die"? Oh lordy.
Who decides which situations qualify for "forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead"?
People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin.
Well people in Africa die on daily basis, are you going to move whole Africa to Finland? Or only the lucky one which have enough cash to actually reach Finland?
People die daily basis, but most Africans aren't in danger to die daily basis, so they don't qualify for refugee status and will be sent back to their country of origin. Only Somalia is country in Africa where Finland don't sent people back currently.
Oh yeah they do, that was my point. Are you sure you are going to send back central africans?
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/
Difficult to say because there isn't any to sent back, so there is no analyse what it means for people that are sent back there. Because all the analyzes are done case by case there isn't general rules. Although war zones and countries like Somalia that don't have stable government are nearly in every case seen too dangerous. Although we return people to Iraq as only parts of the country are considered dangerous, even though it is in state of war.
-
Not accepting refugees = "likely sending them to die"? Oh lordy.
Who decides which situations qualify for "forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead"?
People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin.
Well people in Africa die on daily basis, are you going to move whole Africa to Finland? Or only the lucky one which have enough cash to actually reach Finland?
People die daily basis, but most Africans aren't in danger to die daily basis, so they don't qualify for refugee status and will be sent back to their country of origin. Only Somalia is country in Africa where Finland don't sent people back currently.
-
I have vowed to uphold my country's constitution and I have now plans to break that vow.
not sure if I follow
It is unconstitutional in Finland to sent anybody back in situation where they most likely end up dead.
-
Not accepting refugees = "likely sending them to die"? Oh lordy.
Who decides which situations qualify for "forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead"?
People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin.
It is decided by several governmental institutes that interview every asylum seeker and check situation in their home countries.
-
Question is how big danger those minority groups are for peace in society and truth is that small groups aren't that big deal even with high criminal activity.
Sorry but tell it to the rape victims. Honestly I understand that statistics can be interpreted differently but if you go to individuals your view will change rapidly
Do you think it is different for rape victims if they are raped by Finnish or Swedish person? Because absolutely majority of rapes in Finland have committed by people belonging in those groups. Meaning is it more important to prevent rapes done by foreign people or rapes in general?
No, but its different if you have 100 or 200 rapes. And if you can easily avoid these another 100. That is the point. If it would be that easy to avoid first 100 I would be definetely for it
So sending 40k people most likely to die, to prevent 15 rapes in year is easy way to lower number of rapes? Instead of using schooling and other methods to try achieve same thing. Though luck that our constitution forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead.
Well its your view. I for one would vouch for 40K people from Africa to go back with posibility to die than let anyone from my circle get raped. And I am not ashamed of it. Are you sure about your view on it?
I have vowed to uphold my country's constitution and I have now plans to break that vow.
-
Question is how big danger those minority groups are for peace in society and truth is that small groups aren't that big deal even with high criminal activity.
Sorry but tell it to the rape victims. Honestly I understand that statistics can be interpreted differently but if you go to individuals your view will change rapidly
Do you think it is different for rape victims if they are raped by Finnish or Swedish person? Because absolutely majority of rapes in Finland have committed by people belonging in those groups. Meaning is it more important to prevent rapes done by foreign people or rapes in general?
No, but its different if you have 100 or 200 rapes. And if you can easily avoid these another 100. That is the point. If it would be that easy to avoid first 100 I would be definetely for it
So sending 40k people most likely to die, to prevent 15 rapes in year is easy way to lower number of rapes? Instead of using schooling and other methods to try achieve same thing. Though luck that our constitution forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead.
Politics 2017 Part 3
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
Tell that to Armenians
Also some brave soldier was ready to fight against them in Kansas but wasn't able to tell difference between people with Indian origin from people with Middle Eastern origin.
"At least one witness reportedly heard the suspect yell “get out of my country” shortly before shooting men he thought were Middle Eastern. Both men, engineers at Garmin, appear to be originally from India."
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134459444.html
https://apnews.com/3a570dfdf2254db697fabc0e120bdbb1/Witnesses:-Shooting-at-Kansas-bar-may-have-racial-overtones?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP