Demacia.

Because I like Lux :)

How politely phrased. Sorry you feel that way, but are you entirely sure you want to say that to me? If so, I'll go along with it and reply to that statement.

What, are you going to respond with quotes of mine that you feel are me doing the same thing? Lol. Feel free, but I'm not going down that road anymore, either. Yes, I am saying it, I'm sorry. I have NEVER had a discussion with you, or seen you have a discussion with anyone else, that didn't follow a formula:

You: I believe this.
Other guy: I believe this other thing.
You: How can you believe that when this?
Other guy: Because this, this, and this.
You: Yeah but in world war two this happened and governments are secretive and do this all the time and it happens and other stuff.

PICK YOUR PATH

Other guy: But that's not what happened and that's not how that works. In actuality, in 1944, this this and this.
You: Lol that's wrong I studied this ****.

OR

Other guy: ...what does this have to do with anything? We're talking about Janna, not Stalin.
You: Not even responding to what I say? Mhm.

Stop taking people on random tangents that have nothing to do with the matter at hand. If you want to discuss Demacia and Noxus, discuss Demacia and Noxus. If you want to respond to me, respond to everything else I said in that post, not yet ANOTHER thing you're gonna sell for magic beans.

Well, if you're going to say that about me, we can have that conversation, if you feel like bringing it up.

You, sir, made that post to directly target -me-. Not to target my points about Noxus, Demacia, morality, military, government, etc.

Me.

Even if I did agree with your portrayal of me, deviating into pick-your-path, not even related to previous demacia v noxus debates, is once again, not an attack against my rationalizations, my arguments, or my points - it is an attack against -me-.

You are trying to discredit -me-. Not my points or my argument. Me.

Fine.

On an unrelated curiosity, how do you explain the same JoJ article that listed this incident where the guy who reported it said that Sivir recieved preferential treatment?


So, the statement was false. You said the state had many social programs, and have no examples of such. The rationalization presented is "we can assume that they are there". Which is not on the whole a totally farfetched assumption, but you didn't mention that it was an assumption until after asked for a source.

This is a recurring theme in several of your posts. In several participations you have had in the "which is good or evil, demacia or noxus" you've presented data that was either misrepresented, or blatantly falsified and deceptive. This is not the first time you've been confronted on that point, nor am I the only person to bring it up.

It doesn't bother me that you base a conclusion off of something else, but I take issue with you presenting that conclusion as proven fact when it is repeatedly discovered that that is not the case when you're questioned about it. I've found myself reading something you said, going "Hmm, I don't think that's true" and finding out what you said was false when I went to check the source, which makes it difficult to trust something you say.

Considering that a lot of people would read a thread, listen to one person say "well Demacia does this" and "well Noxus does that" and will assume that both of them are presenting accurate information; a few times, what you've presented as factual was something that had no lore confirmation.

This has also been an important part to your arguments on some occasions. Another I've noticed was: the rationalization that, in a conversation determining if noxus / demacia are good or evil, or the greater or lesser evil, because the writers wanted Noxus to be the bad guys, and demacia to be the good guys, we can give demacia the benefit of the doubt when they do something sketchy, and shouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to noxus - and then use data based off these filled-in assumptions that noxus did something bad and demacia did something good, as evidence to quantify them as good or evil.

And that's a circular rationalization, in my opinion.

The main reason I criticize how you respond to things is because of the above. I sometimes find out that the information you present is false.

The other reason I criticize how you respond to it is that the rationalizations that are used to infer something don't always match up to things that are accurate in real life that would grant an informed opinion on how things can be inferred. If you are going to conclude something based off exhibit A, I'd like you to explain -why- you came to that conclusion.

If you're going to have a conversation where inferred data is used, you need some basis of logic to form those conclusions. When it comes to the workings of governments, politics, and military - the only really functional point of reference is Earth's history. Because your inferred reasonings can clash with what history would indicate would take place, I challenge them to see what that rationalization was built on as that information is not presented by default. So yes, it is relevant.

Especially if you throw morality into the mix. Some topics that you have presented challenged the functions of government and military, so you were given a reply that gave a counter-challenge, naturally involved with government and/or military. But this is unfair and going off in a pointless direction?

^^^

The above was going to be the end of my post, but since your reply was so very nicely phrased:

It's pointless to leave criticism without proof. And for all the average reader of the thread might know, I might be lying. Just like you might be lying about your representation of me. So, I'm going to leave this here. The fair thing to do is just link to the threads and arguments, and people can read them if they so desire and decide for themselves. Why take my word for it? Or yours?

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/...k+are+bad+guys

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=1446413

There.

In this thread, you made the point that if Sivir got such a light sentence, it was evidence of Demacia not being draconian. My counterpoint was that a draconian society would make exceptions for "special people", so it wasn't valid anti-draconian evidence, and I gave some examples. But it's unfair to provide any such examples if they're real and taken from earth?

Howabout a classic from a different thread.

You remember that old quote, don't ya?

You present points that are related to, or based off of, how someone defines their morality - and you say it's off topic and pointless if that basis is challenged.

In that discussion, morality was a central topic. But if someone disagrees with your perception of morality and provides real-life examples of why they disagree, it's unfair and irrelivant because it's a real-life example and not a runeterra example, making it "pol pot nonsense"?

Howabout another.

You made the claim that, in a military situation, if I agreed to feed prisoners, it suddenly debunked my argument. I later presented to you that the exact same scenario you said would break my argument happened in world war 2.

You present points that are related to, or based off of, military stratagem, dipping into real-life, but it's off topic and pointless if someone uses military stratagem from real life to counter your point. I pointed out a historical case that it did, but this is somehow unfair and "pol pot nonsense".


But, howabout one from the first thread I linked, hm?

This was in reference to Talon killing people. Ask Talon essentially stated that "killing for survival" and "murder" were not the same thing, and that it was unfair to say it was "splitting hairs".

Either way, is that not based off of one's own perception of morality, right and wrong?

But it is unfair if someone disagrees with your morality and presents reasons why they disagree? Presenting such reasons are totally irrelivant, to be traded in for "magic beans"?

You present arguments for demacia v noxus with morality basis, but if someone approaches you with a different morality and presents reasons for it, it's off topic pol pot nonsense.

You present arguments with real life military stratagem / ethics basis for demacia v noxus, but if someone presents you with a counter argument with real life military stratagem / ethics basis, it is irrelivant pol pot nonsense, that has "nothing to do with the matter at hand" because it's not related to demacia v noxus?


Now as for the pick your paths.


I thought you said you wanted this to stay demacia v noxus?

Well, you won't mind if I ask you to link me to the page where you derived that paraphrase, will you now? After all, if you wish to slander and discredit me in such a manner, it'd be fair to cite some examples, so perhaps I can explain them and defend myself.

Rather than saying that I'm doing big-bad-wolf stuff, link to the thread and let people go there for themselves, read the thread on their own if they so desire to commit the time to it?

One was a pick your path, there arn't 9000 of those threads, surely you can link the one you are referring to. At least in this reply, I gave you the links to stuff I was using as sources so you can form an argument to refute them if you want. Instead, I get a representation of my dialogue as told by you - rather than the actual quotes, or at least a source for the actual quotes.

You think I'm representing my points poorly? Ok. That's your opinion.

I think you're representing yours poorly? Ok. That's my opinion.

If you don't want to leave it at that, if you want to go out of your way to paraphrase me in that manner, then why not just link people to these conversations, explain their relevance, and let people read them if they actually care about doing so. Who knows, I probably forgot something and you'll get to refute part of my argument. As for me, you didn't quote anything, or link a source. I don't get to say "No, that's not actually true, because".

For you, I gave you links and quotes. You can go back and say "what I meant was this" or "the context was that" and there could be a basis for that refutation. For me, I get...

"I have NEVER had a discussion with you, or seen you have a discussion with anyone else,"

"Other guy: But that's not what happened and that's not how that works. In actuality, in 1944, this this and this.
You: Lol that's wrong I studied this ****."

That. As my fair representation.

I'll be perfectly honest. Two thirds of the way through that, I stopped reading. Why? You've done it AGAIN. You go off on tangents, you bring up OLD tangents and want to continue to complain about them, and you just post wall after wall of arguments and paragraphs that have nothing to do with what we were talking about to begin with. Hell, I made a post depicting, fictitiously, how you cause arguments to go off on tangents. And what do you do? You cut up part of it and make it seem like I'M going off on a tangent. I was depicting how YOU do it, and you know it!

So you know what? Enough of this. I will respond to one point, and one point alone, of yours. Do not drag Pol Pot into this, do not drag morality into this, do not write more than two paragraphs about it, do not claim "well the government of Guam did this in 1997 and Demacia is similar so therefore THEY WOULD DO THE EXACT SAME THING, no exceptions, history repeats itself to the letter every single time ever". There will be no more text walls, no more dragging this out for ten pages in hopes that you make me contradict myself in two random sentences, because you seem to have enough time on your hands to do so. This is the point I will respond to, and if you have a problem with this bare bones, only League of Legends style of discussion, do a 180 right now.

Ready?

You mentioned a reporter claiming Sivir got preferential treatment. Since this whole discussion is SUPPOSED TO BE about whether we'd choose to live in Demacia or Noxus, I'm assuming that you are using that reporter's claim to justify living in Noxus. After all, the punishment for a normal person convicted of that same crime would be, if you asked Demacia's critics, astronomical. So I ask you one question, just one, and I expect no Pol Pot in your answer, no world war two, no Cold War, no telling me that you have no problem killing civilians for the safety of your own troops, none of that irrelevant sidetracking:

Do you have any, ANY evidence of a person convicted of a crime as 'minor' as destruction of public property in Demacia, and the resulting sentence was some mind-blowingly draconic punishment that was one rung above public execution? You may use any such crime on that level or lower. I don't want to hear any response of "well there was this rape conviction and the guy was executed for it and that wouldn't happen in Canada"; that's not what people think of when they think of a truly corrupt, barbaric legal system where "there are no misdemeanors." Though honestly, even a case like that would be worth looking at, for I'm not aware of any specific examples. That's the question. Answer it if you're comfortable entering into a discussion solely regarding League of Legends. Not "the Allied forces did this in Normandy so Demacia would do the exact same thing, no exceptions, they're literally the same people." League of Legends.

A) No, you weren't "depicting how I did it" - otherwise you would've just linked to a quote and source thread and been done with it.

B) If you're not going to read what I said, I don't have much motivation to read and reply to yours - especially since you've previously asked me not to skim over your posts as you "don't skip".

because you seem to have enough time on your hands to do so. <-- Interesting.

This is the point I will respond to, and if you have a problem with this bare bones, only League of Legends style of discussion, do a 180 right now. <-- Then do a 180, because you deviate from it. You put little insults and assertions that my arguments are worthless, off topic, irrelivant, worth "magic beans", but you don't want me to explain why they're not, or how they're related, because doing so is also, conveniently, off topic. You want special rights to make those assertions, but don't want them responded to?

As for your question, your assumption was wrong. I wasn't using the claim to justify living in Noxus. I already stated, previously, before you posted that, that I preferred Noxus for my own reasons. I've also stated in previous threads that if people prefer Demacia for different reasons, they can do so.

If it's "supposed to be" about whether we'd chose to live in Demacia or Noxus, then why is how they penalize people not related?

The way I understood your point, was that you used Sivir's light sentence as evidence of non-draconian. I gave a response suggesting that such a circumstance could exist in draconian law. That is directly related, and that was the end of the point. I replied to something you said. If it was off topic, so was your comment. Or you misinterprited the point I was making, or I misinterprited yours. No big deal either way.

Do you have a specific example of a 'normal' person getting a harsher sentence than Sivir for a crime of similar scope or severity? If not, you are making baseless assumptions. If so, let's see it, for I am legitimately interested.

How do you rationalize that it is a baseless assumption when my point was that exceptions can happen in draconian law?

First, It was stated, in the same JoJ article that listed her crime, that she got a light penalty that an ordinary person would not have recieved.

And no, you're not legitimately interested. You're attempting to change the topic to avoid answering the actual point that was made.

I made the point that exceptions can happen under draconian law, and that an exception taking place was not sufficient evidence that it wasn't draconian. It was not a point against Demacia directly, so no, I don't need to humor the argument that "Demacia gets the benefit of the doubt, Noxus does not, and any argument that does not conform to this idea is baseless" (nor should I humor that logic even if it was the case), especially since neither are directly connected to my original point.

If you are calling that "assumption" baseless, then you are basically saying that if I provide you with real life examples of Draconian societies making exceptions, that it is a baseless assumption about draconian societies making exceptions, because evidence =/= evidence. So if you're referring to my actual point, you're suggesting that real life historical evidence is baseless for real life historical circumstances.

That sure is a lot of words for "no."

Don't make assumptions if you have no evidence. Isn't that what you always tell me?

I'm changing no subject. I'm keeping us on topic, for once. The only thing you are capable of referencing are the words/opinions of a single reporter, and given how the JoJs ended, the testimony of its writers is questionable. But even if you believe it, you have no specific examples of horrible punishments inflicted upon Demacian hooligans for what should be minor issues. Thus, you are making baseless assumptions if you even try to claim anything about the Demacian justice system. This isn't about Pol Pot, this is about Runeterra. The real world events of dictators of old have no bearing on a fictional world involving magic and voids.

Keep trying to drag this into areas of discussion that people debating you aren't as well versed in all you want - this time, it's not happening.

So your claim is that the reporter who said it in the JoJ isn't credible.

Ok.

Prove it.

You put forward the argument that demacia should be given the benefit of the doubt. But not the reporter who criticized demacia. He shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt. Funny how that works. Can you prove that he isn't credible?

And no, you're not keeping on-topic. This topic is "Demacia isn't draconian" - my original topic, which you are supposed to be on, was "exceptions happen in draconian societies" - your reply was a topic change, "demacia isn't draconian" - these are not the same topic.

You are then asking me to prove that demacia was demonstrating draconian behavior and want a specific cited example for a part of their legal system, and in the absence of one, everything else is covered by the benefit of the doubt - but you don't want that same benefit extended anywhere else, nor was it my original point or topic. So yes, you are off topic.