Ow. Just ow.
Also pumpkins can be WAY bigger than cucumbers.
One more win point!
Girth is important when it comes to gourds, and I think all of us respect your preferences in that regard.
Actually, sir, would you maybe be willing to give us a little bit of that history?
I’m fuzzy on his background, though I know it’s a long one, and I understand I have some kind of history with him myself. But, he shows no interest in even talking to me, so. . . .
I officially confess in liking John’s post and now expect to be reprimanded for misdemeanor.
If we’re thinking of the same guy, that’s an unhappy story with an unhappy end.
Unless we aren’t, in which case there are entirely too many prophets on these boards.
Delusions of grandeur are an unfortunately common Capsuleer ailment.
For that matter, I’m sure ‘being a Capsuleer’ is diagnostic for that.
I don’t really understand enough of this to make sense of it.
I think she likes you and respects you.
The last line probably is a high five.
Or “the 5 exotic dancers are on route to you”
Che always had all the luck.
Could it be 5 black candles going to him?
Highly Overpriced though.
I would actually contest this point. Under normal circumstances, one would never refer to a good ruler as cruel and oppressive, but under extreme circumstances, the cruelty and oppressive nature of a ruler can possibly lead to a better outcome than the alternatives available, and can even lead to the aversion of apocalyptic scenarios for a people. Such as existential warfare. It depends on the ruler, of course, and the pros and cons of their regime, but it’s not axiomatically impossible. The axiomatic truth is that cruelty and oppression are not good things, but people themselves, and particularly, leaders, are complicated and cannot be accurately evaluated by “Was he/she a cruel tyrant? If yes = bad”. It is rare in the normal course of governance that these very complicated leaders sprout up, but in the situations that are likely to attract the rise of a tyrant, things are usually already pretty bad and may end up benefiting from a firm hand. I would again stress that this is highly context dependent on the sum of the ruler’s effects on a country, and that most geopolitical situations do not call for this type of government.
It is also true that cruelty and tyranny are rather subjective sentiments. Cruelty tends to be those punishments we personally feel are unjust, tyranny those systems of laws which do not favor us. It is difficult to see the world in such terms, and to understand how we come to rely on those terms to justify our own cruelty and tyranny. Everyone is a villain to someone, the question is really how comfortable we are with those judgments.
Something being necessary does not make it ‘good’.
Something is good if it is the best practicable option available. The reverse sounds like the unrealistic pretentious whinings of a child.
And like I said, if the actions of a tyrant saved an entire race of people from extinction, you’d have a hard time convincing any of them or their descendants that the man was a cruel tyrant and thus axiomatically bad. Methods matter, consequences matter more.
If we want to go further into this topic, I can provide a sterling example of a cruel tyrant who was ultimately good for his country. One I think you will agree with, actually.
No, ‘least bad’ isn’t good. It’s just ‘least bad’. Sometimes, there are no ‘good’ options. You just have to suck it up and deal.
But go for it, give me your sterling example.
Good doesn’t mean perfect, or even ideal.
No, it means good.
And ‘least bad’ still ain’t that. What’s your example?
For my example: The actions of Keitan Yun during the purging of Karsoth agents and assorted other criminals and traitors from the highest levels of government during the Elder invasion.
Strictly speaking, his actions were illegal, cruel and oppressive. He took an armed gang into the floor of the Republic Parliament itself, slaughtered anyone whom he had evidence was a Karsoth agent or otherwise a traitor, and laid the evidence of their deeds on their bodies. This was oppressive and tyrannical because it violated the laws of the Republic and violated the right to a fair trial. But it was necessary and once the dust had settled and the Republic was purged of foreign agents, traitors, and assorted criminals, it was good . Killing is evil, breaking the law is evil, denying the right to trial in favor of political murder is cruel and oppressive, but none of these caused as much damage to the entirety of the Republic as those agents did, to say nothing of the damage they could’ve still done if they had been allowed to use that network of agents, embedded within the highest levels of Republic government, to avoid legal justice and execution for their crimes. Yun saw that the Republic at that point was rotten and corrupt to its core and he took swift action that ultimately probably saved the entire government and millions of lives, to say nothing of the autonomy of the Minmatar people. At the cost of a brief period of cruel oppression and tyranny. I will take that trade any day. His actions were ultimately good for the Republic, not just the least bad, they improved things. It would have been better if things had never gotten to that point, but that’s hardly something that be laid at Yun’s feet. He and many others knew about it for a long time but he could do nothing until a crisis emerged and he had the proof he needed. He’s an example of a ‘cruel oppressive tyrant’ who did it right.