Daedthr

Hey, so I'm trying to get back into modding for Oblivion and Skyrim after not having done it for some time, and am no longer sure what version of nifskope people around here are using. I'm a blender 2.49b user and my natural inclination would be to use nifskope version 1.1.0 RC6 along with NifUtilsSuite, but I can no longer find a download for this version of nifskope so if anyones got one that would be great (all the sites I've looked on don't seem to have the .exe). Failing that, what version and setup are people using at the moment that can deal with both Oblivion and Skyirm .nifs? Thanks! EDIT: I'm dumb I already have Nifskope installed, ignore me!

SWBF2 hero assault online, made a thread earlier a couple of days ago about it cos we're trying to get more players.

Many of you will have played Star Wars Battlefront II (the 2006 game) avidly in your childhoods, the game was amazing and is something of a classic. But one aspect of the game that seems to have gone relatively under-the-radar was the Hero Assault gamemode playable on the Mos Eisley map. Now, SWBF2 can still be played online through Gameranger and there is a fairly good community that still plays it, but that is currently trying to expand, specifically we'd love for more players getting into Hero Assault, as this mode has huge competitive potential. Its pretty hard to give you a good idea of this potential as the mode isn't quite comparable to any other genres, I can only point you to some of the competitive hero assault videos on youtube, and say that the potential of this gamemode is - I believe - similar to the revival that Smash Melee experienced. Due in no small part to lazy devs, hero assault has an intricate series of mechanics and strategies that play out to create a very competitive and enjoyable gamemode. It'd be awesome to get people more involved in this, the mode has massive depth and if you're a competitive person whos willing to experience a massive learning curve you can easily get hooked, needless to say the best Hero Assault player has around 15,000 hours in the game. So anyone interested feel free to join our community discord, someone there will answer any questions you might have: https://discord.gg/DyWpW (For fair warning, this discord like most other gaming communities can get pretty edgy, there's a no porn rule though) If you wanna check out the game you buy it on Steam, its on sale fairly often, and to play online you simply download and install Gameranger from here: https://www.gameranger.com/ There's a guide if you need one here: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=885995522 And to give you a taste of some epic Hero Assault gameplay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lheIXQi5f50&t=128s (Vid is about 4 mins long but I skipped the first half and into for some of the good bits) Thanks and hope to hear from some of ya soon, it'd be awesome to revive this great game.

UKIP are a very odd party really. Before Farage, they were frankly racist, and even now I'm not entirely comfortable with some of their principles, but then part of it will be to do with the fact that both Labour and the Conservatives have become so centralised since Blair that any real sense of Left or Right wing in a party seems overzealous. Personally though, I'm not a big fan of UKIP, it's a party with a greater share of nutters ("Gays cause floods!" type nutters) in than either the Conservatives or Labour, and that says something to me about what sort of things the principles behind their policies are. They're no longer racist by any means (they used to be compared to BNP), but they still have an overbearing focus on immigration and frankly their "British jobs for British people" doesn't attract me in the slightest, considering Britains wealth has historically been based on the exploitation of foreign colonies and slave labour. I've also been present at a debate/discussion with a UKIP council member, and he was disgustingly prejudiced. They want to do things like cut foreign aid to the poorest countries in the world, which as Nick Clegg said, wouldn't help anyone. All in all I think they have a long way to go before they get anywhere near the stage of either the Conservatives of Labour, not that I think they ever will. Currently they're a one-man party under Farage, and there's still a lot of public disapproval of them because of their history and their leanings against immigration. I'm not opposed to either of those positions I underlined. As far as the comment about Britain's wealth is concerned, its not fair to hold people today responsible for what happened over 100 years ago. And that's a really poor excuse to justify immigration policies like they're some sort of reparations for things done in the past. Immigration should be about "do you possess a skill that we need?". Opening the flood gates from the 3rd world is a nation destroying policy. The fallacy is the belief that most of them will adapt to British ways over time. So what's the plan if they refuse to adapt? Also, holding the entire party accountable for the positions of a few nutters isn't exactly fair. Every side has them. Firstly, I apologise for the comment about the 'nutters', it was subjective and unfair, though I believe I have done this already? Your point about Britain's wealth is also fair, though one could still argue that while we as people are not responsible for the methods used to accrue our nations wealth, the nation we live in is, and it could be argued that we should attempt to give the countries that suffered under our empire some reparation. Indeed we demanded the same thing from Germany after WW1, when the majority of the people who lived their had not personally contributed to the war in any way. Also I hope when you said you weren't opposed you didn't mean you favoured slavery and exploitation? I interpreted it as you don't believe it's relevant. However I will agree with you that immigration policy is a poor way to pay reparations, it is to indirect and uncontrolled. Your point about vetting immigrants is also one I will agree with, we do need to vet who enters the country and use this to evaluate whether or not we allow entry. This is all well and good, but UKIP as a party have an overbearing focus on immigration control, in that it uses a disproportionate amount of their campaigning time, and is unequivocally their most debated policy. European history tends to show that 'one-issue' parties are not good for a country, because they come into government with a huge amount of pressure based around said issue, which encourages the neglecting of other equally important ones, and they also tend to find that when they get into government they have somewhat 'bought their own press', and that the issues they have to deal with aren't quite as easy to fix as they thought. I'm not saying UKIP only talk about immigration, but it's an issue they give too much of their time too. Why? Because it is a vote-winner issue, unlike the economy which few invest time in to understand, that NHS (which is virtually untouchable as a whole now and the only issue that remains is extent of privatisation) or ethical issues, immigration is something everyone thinks they understand and which people are inclined to blame other things on. I won't deny the need for controlled immigration is a big issue here, but the real issue of this political generation is the EU, which encompasses a lot more than immigration, something which I feel UKIP is diluting in order to win votes. As for expecting immigrants to adapt to Britain, that's not really a fallacy as cultural assimilation has been proven time and again in our history. After WW2 large numbers of Indian's and West Indian's came here, and they have adapted, it is no mere coincidence Britain's most popular dish is Chicken Tikka Masala (a dish which actually was born in Glasgow but was an English attempt at Indian cuisine). Even immigrants for the Middle East have integrated virtually seamlessly here, at least in the middle and upper classes, the only real issues remain in working class circles and regions, and education. If History is anything to go by (which it most certainly is), expecting immigrants to adapt is far from fallacy in the UK, though I understand this is different in many other countries such as the States. Something I'll say concerning UK immigration, is that Farage and his party seem to think Britain is overcrowded, citing prison statistics and unemployment as evidence. This is nonsense, it is not the numbers that cause these problems, it is the lack of vetting. You cut down prison stats by vetting immigrants to see if they have a criminal record, you cut down unemployment by vetting immigrants to see if they have the skills the country needs (as you have rightly pointed out), you relieve pressure on the NHS by prioritising the passage of immigrants with a background in medicine, you do fix these issues by straight cutting the numbers and imposing a quota. The UK isn't overcrowded (again go watch Question Time, I believe the panel had Farage and Russell Brand on?), it hasn't got the right people in, this number of people is fine, it isn't the number that causes issues. I believe UKIP's claiming of an overcrowded Britain due to numbers is an example of them tunnel-visioning on a political issue and then misinterpreting it the cause of actual issues in order to win votes, rather than a political issue caused by current cultural unrest. The foreign aid thing is a little sad, I believe cutting it shows a country with a completely individualistic culture, a culture that favours helping the relatively fortunate get what they want more than helping the desperately poor getting what they need. Yes, there is poverty in our country, there are run-down council estates and some people on the streets, and it is our duty to look after them before those in other countries. But taking away funding from countries with slums, with AIDS epidemics, with mass (and I mean mass) unemployment and poverty, seems to me a very, very morally cheap way to deal with domestic problems which could be solved by taking a little more money out of the pockets of the fortunate (foreign aid really doesn't account for that much in comparison to the amount that could be levied in further tax)? And I know some right-wingers are going to say "Oh but it's unfair for those people to be taxed more, they've worked hard!" or "Fix your own countries problems before you give any foreign aid!". But let me tell you what you're really saying, you're saying that it's fairer to take money from the poorest countries in the world that is desperately needed, because you don't want to tax the rich anymore, fair? No. I honestly fail to understand why people ever think it's fairer to make the poorest poorer to make the rich richer, just because they live in a difference place from you, it doesn't make them any less human or make basic human necessities any less needed. Want to fix your countries problems? Go ahead, get some money for it by cutting down on government bureaucracy or taxing the multi-millionaires, don't take away the school of some Somali children for your blighted conception of nation boundaries and only helping one's own. I'll add two last points on this, the first of which is that I'm not saying wealth must be distributed equally in the world or to give half our GDP to poorer nations, I'm saying taking away the meagre foreign aid we do give to get quick solutions to our problems is morally cheap. I also want to say that before anyone says something along the lines of "Most of the money never gets through anyway.", that whether or not the foreign aid gets to the people who need it most is irrelevant of the principle of giving to the less fortunate, what governments do with aid for their citizens is their moral responsibility, giving the aid or not is ours. Finally going back to UKIP, I will give them this, they promote a relative amount of honesty in politics that is certainly a breath of fresh air, and is a great credit to Farage and the party. Their willingness to discuss issues such as immigration as they do is a good thing, I simply feel that they take it too far sometimes (just look at some of Farage on Question Time, he manages to bring most issues back to immigration somehow). Something else to note is that they're something of a 'One-man party", Farage actually said he was going to resign if he didn't win his seat this election, and he did offer his resignation, but the party actually didn't accept it, they didn't let him resign. I say let him in the sense of they didn't condone it of course, so he stayed on. This is because Farage has completely turned them around, without him they would lose vast amount of support over the next term, because his charisma and honesty are a great factor in their growing support. I also want to add this, I'm trying my hardest not to seem like I'm attacking UKIP's members, because I really am not. I don't believe that UKIP's members are in anyway racist, or responsible for some of the crack pot things the vocal party nutters say, or even for the policies concocted by the leaders, I'm simply arguing that UKIPs policies and stance do not make sense to me, and I fail to see how they would be beneficial. My first post about UKIP was very poorly worded and some it I regret posting, because it's unfair, it was too heavily based on my own experience of the party than an objective view (I was present at a debate with a UKIP councilman and some of the things he said were frankly disgusting), so for this I must you to forgive me.

Haha very true, maybe we should do a Guy Fawkes. :D

Of course Mike Brown didn't act the way he did because of slavery, you're missing the point. He didn't wrestle with Wilson through the car window because he thought he "Better teach this white slave master a lesson!", he did it because he felt to respect (which he should have) for Wilson as a police officer. The people in Batlimore rioted because they thought the police were being unjust, they resent the police force. You want to know where this resentment comes from, it comes from a lack of rapport between some black communities and the police force. As I have already laboriously explained, when a social group begins to develop an enmity for the police, you have a self-perpetuating cycle. The cycle will keep restarting itself, because something happens to create a division, resulting in a social group harbouring resentment towards the police. This resentment is what causes people like Brown to react to the police in the way they did, and when that happens you get fatalities in the cause of justice. But because the original division was an unjust one, the social group then sees future encounters as also being unjust, therefore their resentment grows and the cycle restarts of an even greater magnitude from before. This is not something that is difficult to grasp. Eventually cycles like this should fade out, because all it takes is one generation to go through life without such notable encounters, and then the divide begins to be forgotten. But in the case of the racial divide you have, the magnitude of the first division (which was slavery and continued racial hate and inequality for generations afterwards due to the nature of the abolition as being a civil war) is so high that it cannot be forgotten in a generation of two. The injustices suffered for centuries have been burned into racial memory (as they should be, they should not be forgotten just because we do not want to look back on our people's failings), and as historically the police have been meant to be the keeps of justice, there should be absolutely no surprise that a divide exists between them and the black community now, ultimately because of events centuries ago that were never dealt with decisively (after the abolition in 1865, black people were actually taken out of the franchise, equality continued to decline after that one great leap). As for your mentioned difference between the UK and the US, as I have already stated, Black-White/Police/Institutional relations here are far far stronger than over in the states. So what you've said is true, Britain never did have a comparatively sizeable domestic slave population, and yes there still remains racial inequality, but racial inequality between whites and blacks here is extremely limited. Racial inequality here is far more prevalent in White-Eastern European relations, and also White-Asian Relations. So you see we never had this huge great cause of division in Britain domestically, which partially accounts for our relatively stronger relations between Black communities and White communities, and the police. As for why we might have poorer White-Asian Relations, it would most likely be due to the influx of immigrants after WW2, and the associated displacement fears felt by the populace at the time that perpetuated themselves for the next 50 years. By now however, these communities have become so integrated that relations are very much better. The same cannot be said for White-Eastern European relations here, because the divide here has been much more recently, namely Blair's open-door police in the 2000s and the Inter-EU immigration policy allowing vast numbers of immigrants in, which is something the working class resented due to perceived loss of jobs. There is a consistent theme with inequality, which is that of a cycle of division started by some injustice (or perceived injustice), which continues for a few generations but gradually declines as the two groups integrate. The problem with the US is that the nature of this first injustice was so great and so close to home (in addition to being one of the central causes behind the deadliest conflict for the US in history) that it will not decline, because relations got worse in the generations that followed. This is why you have these divisions, this is why certain black communities might harbour issues with the police, because of a vicious circle that, yes, started with the injustice of slavery. No, most of these communities or people will not even acknowledge that this resentment has anything to do with slavery centuries ago, but will attribute it to Racism and racial inequality, which like it or not, was a problem that started with slavery. So you see you missed the point, no Brown and the rioters didn't act this way with slavery in mind, they acted this way because of divisions, divisions that reach way back into History and that start with slavery and the continued inequality after abolition, intermingled with bad feeling from the Civil War. I was discussing the First Cause, you seemed to be thinking I was discussing the immediate cause.

Ah and so do I, as you say politics is such a broad, varied and complicated subject that trying to express it in literary argument won't ever do it justice. We need a book, a library, or a hall of debate. :)

Hmmm, I do understand that in some circumstances people will just sometimes "play the race card", but you'd still be wrong to say that all racism is just 'truly equal justice', racism does still exist, and it exists in every country in the world. The point about economic disparity can't be understated though, I think ultimately it is this that keeps fuelling the fire. Bring people out of poverty and a lot of problems tend to go, ethnic divisions would certainly decline. But again, you can't state that the entirety of these divisions come from poverty or difference in economic conditions, it is likely a the most major contributor, but I still feel that it would be an insult to the memory of many to suggest that the divisions that cost them their lives were purely economic, and not in any way ethnic. There is also the question of what is the ultimate cause of the economic disparity? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that ethnicity plays a large part in one's chances to get a job, to get into college, to get a loan, etc. http://thinkprogress.org/education/2014/06/25/3452887/education-race-gap/ An argument can certainly be made that it is ethnic divisions in the first place that then caused an economic disparity, which in turn exacerbates ethnic divisions and so on and so on. It is yet another vicious circle, and the only way to break it is to pull one half out, either the economic disparity or the ethnic divisions, as they cause each other. As for which one would be easier to pull out, I cannot say, because I don't live in the US. Would it be easier to try and bring these communities out of poverty, or to try to eliminate any ethnic gap in employability, application for higher education, pay, etc.?

I don't really see your point here, you seem to be saying that Europeans are interested only in the sensationalism regarding racial inequality in the US rather than the reasons for it, other than that I don't see what you're trying to get at? While I don't doubt that sensationalism and disapproval of American racial equality is common here, it is not fair to say to that we don't understand the reasons behind it. Several European countries continue to have as much racial inequality as America does today (I have a German friend who lived in a community in Germany where there was huge amounts of Racism towards the Turkish). In my country whilst black/white segregation is relatively low, there still exists very real divisions in White/Asian relations and there are some communities that comply hugely to a racially skewed demographic (though this is not actually Racism). For instance the 2011 London riots began over a police shooting of a black man, but like the Baltimore riots spiralled into opportunistic looting. We also have places like Birmingham, which has a huge Asian community, which continues to cause issues particularly in education. What we do not tend to have as much in my country is the same degree of divisions between ethnic groups and institutions like the police. There certainly exists some, but it's just not on the same scale, it rarely reaches the news. The real divisions between the people and the police here are arguably over class, with there still being some degree off enmity towards the police in the north over the brutality they showcased in the 1970s and 80s. However we certainly do understand the causes, and what you say about us not being able to fathom a reason other than 'irrational hatred' is wrong. Racism is irrational, it is always irrational, but it does not always come from a hatred. In fact, funnily enough Racism from hatred is rather seldom in Western Countries today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/10061025/Worlds-most-racially-intolerant-countries-mapped.html Racial inequality is really made prominent not by hatred, but by class, stereotyping, crime, indifference to highly non-culturally diverse communities, and a countries history. If I had to put a cause to the difference in racial equality in the US and the UK, I'd say it would be down to the countries histories. Both our countries have a history of racial oppression, but the US was quite literally born into this oppression, whereas for Britain most racial oppression happened off of our own soil in the colonies. When the America was first colonised by European's (I'm not talking Spanish Conquistadors and the Aztec's, rather the colonising of America by Britain, France, the Dutch, etc.) the Native American's were treated horrendously, driven off their own lands and denied rights by the invaders of their own country. Then you have the British and Spanish using slaves to cultivate crops in the US, a legacy which continued past the war of independence. Now, slavery in the UK ended in 1833, and ended just over 30 years later in 1865 in the US. However the two abolitions were very different. The abolition in the UK was executed through legislation with the Slavery Abolition Act, the only real fight happened in Parliament (a film I'm rather fond of that tells this story is Amazing Grace, worth a watch). However in the US, slavery and it's abolition was one of the central causes of the Civil War, which was the deadliest conflict in your history. This meant that your abolition really the result of war rather than democratic decision, which generated huge social issues for much of the country, particularly as the pro-slavery Confederate States (there were also some Union ones) now had their resentment for the abolition of slavery mixed with that of their loss of the civil war. Racial inequality continued in both countries long after the abolition of slavery, and despite what many people in my country seem to think, we were not really much faster at dealing with it than the US was, the timeline's are strikingly similar. The difference is in the roots of it's demise, the greatest step towards defeating racial inequality in the UK was made in Parliament, the greatest step towards defeating racial inequality in the US was made on the battlefield. So if I had to put racial inequality down to anything in your country, it would not be that white hatred or bigotry, it would be the backlash the Civil war had in creating divisions in America, which were then translated onto the matter of racial equality. You might think this all seems to long ago, but cycles of racial inequality, divisions between social groups and the police, and the divisions created by war are self-perpetuating. They go from generation to generation, because ultimately it is the environment somebody is brought up in that defines their views, and the results of civil war create divisions in communities that will continue for generations if left unchecked. In the case of the US I would believe that these divisions easily became entangled with the problem of racial inequality, which leaves you with the problems you have today - some highly segregated communities with poor views of other groups or institutions. However this is really just a theory, there are plenty of other factors in a case as complex as the US's, but either way you are wrong, European's are not just concerned with the sensationalism of racial inequality in the US and neither do they believe all white American's to be bigoted. We understand just as well as you do that Racism doesn't work like that, and while the case of the US is quite unique, we are perfectly able to evaluate it with the knowledge we do have (I'll also point out that we're far more likely to do this objectively, not being acquainted with the various cultural influences that exist in your country). Everything I have mentioned before now has been in relation to Black-Police relations, rather than Racism as a whole. Not once have I stated that I believe the police force to be racist on the grounds of irrational hatred, in fact I have not even stated that I believe the whole force to be Racist at all. What I have stated is that Racism is alive and well in America and that there certainly are some cases of institutionalised Racism in the police (look at the link I provided earlier in relation to police resignations over the appointment of a black mayor), and that there seems to exist a serious lack of rapport between the police and certain communities. None of this have I attributed to irrational hatred, indeed the latter of the problems I attributed to the self-perpetuating anti-police cycle that is present in every Western country in the world. I've provided numerous pieces of evidence for both claims, and if you have not taken the time to go back and look through them, that is not my problem. I'll also have you know that most of them are not from US media sources, as I'm quite aware of the reputations the like of Fox News and other US media outlets have. The fact that you call European's who evaluate these problems arrogant, when in fact they come to look at these problems as an outsider and will therefore more often than not be far more objective than US analysts ever will, seems rather hypocritical. Maybe it's time to consider the idea that 'over-educated' and well-travelled foreigners, actually might be able to make valid evaluations without being taken in by the sensationalism that haunts your country and it's people? *Gasps*

Ah I see. I suppose in response to your example the relativist might attempt to analyse the situation that they and the assailant are in to try and justify why it was wrong. But you they would still have to constantly answer the question "why?" and it would regress further and further until they have to either accept that morality does not exist under relativism, or define an absolute foundation for morality. When rationalising relativism (hoho I like that alliteration), it always end up at the sole cause, because that is the most fundamental problem. Though there are others, such as can we fully evaluate the consequences of our actions?

@Mongoose57 What you were talking about in your earlier post is Relative vs Absolute Morality. Relative morality is the idea that whether or not an action is right or wrong is dependent on the situation, e.g. culture, consequence, beliefs, etc. Absolute morality is the idea that an action is either inherently good or bad and this never changes, for whatever reason the absolutist believes. Personally, I don't see relative morality as working, because if there are no absolute morals, then theoretically anything is could be good or evil depending on the culture you come from, you could even make up your own culture. Now, for every ethical issue there are going to be to human beings who take opposite views, and these views will be based on their situation (upbringing, beliefs, culture, financial circumstances). But both humans are of equal moral authority, one is not higher hierarchically than the other, and as relative morality justifies actions based on situation, then both their beliefs are equally justified by their different situations. So if two opposite beliefs are equally justified and equal in authority, than which is right or wrong? The answer is neither, for if two opposites are equally right or wrong, then neither is right or wrong, and as the principle applies to any ethical issue, morality ceases to exist as nothing is right or wrong. Thus I'd consider myself an Absolutist on the basis that for morality to exist there must be something of a higher authority than humans defining what is right or wrong. Your question was asking what this higher authority is, and to that there have been many answers. Often it will be a Supreme Being but there are others too, for instance a concepts of Duty, Goodwill and Reason (Look at Kantian Ethics), or perhaps what occurs in Nature, or whether or not an action fulfils it's purpose (though really this isn't absolute because one can commit an action for any purpose), like in Thomas Aquinas Natural Law (though the foundation for this is a God). There are plenty of explanations, but it might not be wise in asking for people's opinions on it because the majority will have to come down to a Supreme Being, and Religious debate is a no-no here.

This is true, but the problem with these mathematical systems is that they of little use to us, because the fundamentals on which they are built do not seem to apply to the universe we live in. The sum of all the empirical experience we have had in history indicates that within our universe, n + 0 = n, thus it is a system based upon this that we use because it is the system that can best be applied to the universe in which we live. This is similar to what I was trying to express earlier, yes you can create a mathematical system based on the idea that 1=2 and develop it further whilst all staying 'in reason'. But you would only be staying in the reason of that system, you would not be staying in the reason that applies to our universe, because all the evidence indicates that 1 =/= 2. Thus, our idea of what reason and the a priori is, is based on experience, it could be argued that the a priori comes from the a posteriori. The true a priori is the purely suppositional, but the realm of the purely suppositional has no necessary laws, so nothing can really be proven by it. It is for this reason that I find it amusing when people point at an a priori argument (an argument from pure logic and reason) and say that there is no 'evidence' around us to support it. Well, actually, the logic and reason that makes up the argument is the sum of all human empirical experience, the a priori is quite literally the highest form of argument, because while the a posteriori is based on selective experience, arguments from reason and logic are based on laws that have been defined by universal human experience since the moment we existed. Somehow in the previous post I managed to miss my own point, and ended up trying to show the opposite in trying to demonstrate that we must hold our logic absolutely. I believe I've now adequately rectified this.

That's the gist of it, your country's history (and mine as well though perhaps to a lesser extent) has created an environment in which Racism is incredibly hard to deal with, as it is self-perpetuating. The only solutions I could really think of are another World War to unite the country, a revolution of some kind, or possibly an incredibly effective campaign run by some very charismatic people on both sides (think Martin Luther King but bigger, with multiple King's some of which would be white). Sadly, most likely to happen of those is a World War. : /

Yeah, I would not want to be a policemen, they have one of the hardest and most depressing jobs you can find. Understand that I am in no way anti-police, I speak purely from principle rather than practicality, I understand that policemen can find things as hard as the members of the communities that hate them do. I think ultimately the only way these problems will be rectified is with a concerted effort from both groups to understand each other, even though I believe it is more the duty of the police to do so more, it would not be a reasonable expectation for fallible humans.

If it sounded as though I was implying equality to be exclusive left, then I apologise for it is obviously not so. I also agree with what you say about right-wing and left-wing attempting equality at different stages. I was merely pointing out that the whole basis for the extreme left wing is total equality, which is not the same in the right-wing. The right-wing may promote the giving of equal opportunities, but this is not the same as the true equality left-wing attempts because of course there are going to be some that are naturally able to make more use of their opportunities than others, e.g. the more academically intelligent. The right-wing cannot claim true equality when somebody who is more academically brilliant then somebody else may receive a better life, even if they had equal starting opportunities. The left-wing ensures absolute equality because as you say, it ensures end-term equality. The right-wing makes Freedom paramount to absolute equality because while it aims to provide equal opportunities, it gives people the freedom use these opportunities as they will and rewards accordingly, rather than rewarding all uses of opportunity equally. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to ascertain that the central foundation of the extreme left wing is paramount equality and the foundation of the extreme right-wing is paramount freedom. Neither are exclusive concepts, but I don't recall ever saying they were. Also, whilst both systems might leave you equally miserable, an argument can be made for the 'catchers' of right-wing society being more miserable than people of a left-wing society, because these 'catchers' will also be aware that there are people in their society who are far better off than them, thus amplifying their misery. Modern socialism is the idea that society should be organised communally, it is nothing to do with Fascism, which simply describes a governmental and social system based on nationalism and strict compliance with rules at the cost of freedom. I don't know why you equate communal organisation to Fascism or where you got this from, if you look at the modern definitions of these things you'll find that these are exactly what they are, also classical socialism is no more socialism than 'modern' socialism is, definitions change. I don't remember saying 'Freedom to fail is good thing' but I do remember my expression of appreciation towards the fact that you had demonstrated that both the right-wing like the left-wing would leave the majority in misery, as you have just repeated now. You seem to have misunderstood me, I appreciated the rhetoric of your statements, not the sentiments.