ffa1mf

I chuckled a bit at the question asked - Is this lowering of standards, teaching their children that in order to be a real man, you are to lay around the house, playing games, while the women work.? To quote a relatively famous person: Before the white man came, the men and boys hunted, fished, played games or competed in wrestling or foot-racing and the women gathered roots and berries, cooked and looked after the children. Somehow the white man thinks he has improved our lives. Chivalry as asked by the OP is obviously asking about the chivalry of society, not the chivalry of war. The rules of chivalry of war are found in documents such as the Geneva Convention and Hague Conferences and establish rules of combat for both combatants and non-combatants. They exist and quite clearly so. Chivalry of society is primarily unwritten cultural rules or accepted customs that address courtesy, conduct, deportment and duty as a member of a society, a culture or even a class of society. Chivalry of society its dead and the feminism movement killed it (not my quote, but cant remember who said it). Before you call for me to be banned or set afire at a stake - I dont particularly agree that chivalry of society is dead or that feminism killed it, but that the rules of society have changed and are changing and the problem is no one is altogether sure what the rules are. Examples; Im male and driving down the highway and see a woman standing beside her car at the side of the road, appearing to be broken down in some manner. Do I stop or not stop? If I do stop, what is the type/level of assistance I should offer? If I dont stop, what should I do if anything? Should a man wear a tie to work? Should women wear knee length skirts to work? Should I work or live off welfare? Even something as simple as opening a door for another person may result in a rebuke (ie: I can open a door myself, I dont need anyone to open it for me), being ignored or receiving a thank you situations I have experienced and am sure others have as well. So what is the correct thing to do in any given situation? To me what we observe is not a lowering of standards but a just a change in standards, and not necessarily all for the worse nor all for the better, but change that one must accept and attempt to deal with as best they can. If there is a problem that exists, its the intolerance individuals have with the changes.

Read the article and.... laughed til I was helpless lying on the floor gasping for breath. I read a lot of research documents in my day to day job and that was one I would have to nominate for excessive "weasel clause" usage and just plain bad, well everything.

Since justice is impossible without mercy as mercy would be impossible without justice - we can only have a system which is supposed to balance between these two opposite ends of the scale.

Where are the dead drunken goblins? Locations listed here - http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Goblins

Thank you responders, that clarifies things somewhat, it also opens a whole list of questions that I want to ask, but won't. I apologize grannywils - but thank you for the reply and explanation. @stardusk-Thank you as well. I was looking at what would be a traditional philosophy for the democratic party in using the term liberal democrat. In my country the political parties are named the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, and they do tend to follow their traditional philosophies. It's just a bit more difficult to remember republican/traditionally conservative and democrat/traditionally liberal when not used to it and to be honest, I get the American parties mixed up all the time. @HeyYou-thanks as well. Sad to hear the program isn't as good as I heard it was. Pretty much everytime I look at politics I am struck by the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Kind of defines politics in my country anyway. As for the gentleman in the video, I agree, there should have been a policeman standing outside the courtroom waiting to have him answer a few questions just to find out exactly what was going on.

Given the video and particularly the one poster’s experience (thanx for sharing that, it was quite enlightening), if this is typical of the system, then I have to agree that the system is not just flawed, it’s broken, and badly. Even if it isn't typical, the system needs work as there is obviously something wrong with it. I have to admit I have no familiarity with the system in my own country – I have never really thought about it much, but I am wondering how badly off it is as well. I wonder though, if the gentleman in the video even understands what the system is for or how the system works or if he is just pretending at being uninformed. Sort of risky in a courtroom, but it did make me wonder. I also agree that the problems likely do extend back to the lack of clearly defined rules for the system and the case load placed on the workers. The “do more with less” concept practised by governments (and even industry), pretty much world wide, also has a lot to do with many of the problems we see and have, I suspect. Perhaps someone may correct me, but the advice given to “Liberals and Obama supporters” to watch the video didn’t make sense to me. Obama is a liberal democrat (I think?) and was he not part of the effort to finally pass a law to move people from welfare to work that was initiated by Clinton (a republican?), a law that was largely ignored by Bush (a republican?), and that has been relatively successful in reducing the number of people on welfare? It may be because I am not an American and do not have a full understanding of the political system, so I wouldn’t mind if someone could explain the point of view or debate the statement makes, as it seems contradictory to me. I would also like to ask which part the individual who posted, “An entire generation of people were brought up with the idea of "more" and "I want it now." is a part of; ie: the part that brought up the generation and taught them to expect “more” and “now” or a part of the generation making the demands for “more” and “now”, as debate is awkward without knowing which side the poster stands.

Forgot all about this one - just happened to be looking for something else and found it in my notes. There is supposed to be an island hidden near/around Mankar's Paradise (your PC is sent there by Martin from Cloud Ruler Temple to get the amulet of kings from Mankar Cameoran during the Paradise quest in the main questline). There is supposed to be an invisible crab and a reward chest with some unique items in it.

I recommend you look at the mod Vaults of Cyrodiil (http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=9357) as this mod does address the idea that Counts and Countesses and members of nobility tend to have a bit more wealth and loot than the average citizen. It also adds to various merchants as they would also likely hold a bit more wealth and loot as it were than the average citizen. There is a few other mods that add wealth and loot, such as Cheydinhal for Thieves (http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=32484) as Cheydinhal has a slightly higher class of society than say Bravil, so the mod adds a bit more to or raises the value of the items owned by NPCs in Cheydinhal. Hope these help and have fun!

The question asked is; “When is it okay to kill someone?”, but in reading the question, the first thing that came to my mind was “Bad question or test?”. Regardless of the questions authenticity, the question permits individuals to establish an open ended set of conditions that can be used to rationalize or justify that it is either okay or not okay to kill someone. The question is also being looked at by individuals who are predominately from societies with reasonably similar laws and social, moral, ethical or whatever you want to call them, standards. Thus, I would not expect a post that suggests it is okay to kill a female child because she is not male. But, should such a post be made I am quite sure that the poster would establish a set of circumstances or conditions to justify or rationalize the killing of a female for not being male that would fall within a practical, beneficial or perhaps even a convenient reasoning. That is not to suggest such reasoning is right or acceptable or even understandable to everyone, but it would be to the individual who has suggested it is okay to kill a female for not being male and in their mind they would have justified or rationalized their answer. As I said in my post, “One may pick the circumstances that would match their personal morale standard for any of the conditions I have suggested…”, and in the majority of posts favorable to the “OK” answer, individuals have established circumstances that they believe justify or rationalize killing another human being, and in looking at those circumstances, generally a situation is established that makes it expedient, convenient or beneficial to kill someone. It is somewhat amusing to contemplate such questions as “would you kill Hitler given the chance” or some other sufficiently horrific circumstance when, if one thinks about it for a second; time travel is not a possibility (as far as I am aware) and further, even with the ability of going back in time, Hitler would have been an innocent that was murdered as he would have done nothing to justify someone killing him at that point in time. So conditions, as impossible as they are, are established to justify the answer – which in the Hitler question allows a practical and beneficial justification or rationalization to kill him. And yes, you may ask, “Well then Mr. Smart Guy, what would you do if someone was raping your wife, daughter or sister?”. In all honesty, I would attempt to interject my body between the attacker and the individual being attacked. However, I am also 6’3”, 240 lbs and trained to deal with aggressive individuals bent on causing harm to others and have the ability to restrain them without killing them. Not everyone is the same, so different answers are not unexpected and are the right of the individual. And yes, someone would be able to establish a set of conditions where I would be forced to answer “Yes, I would kill someone in those circumstances” because it would be practical, convenient or beneficial in the circumstances. However, that is not my answer to the question asked, as given the correct set of circumstances that would force me to choose to kill another human being, it would still not be specifically “okay” in my mind, but it would be necessary, which I have conceded is really just another form of “okay”. Thus my answer to the question, “When is it okay to kill someone?” When it is convenient, expedient or beneficial, based upon the circumstances established to justify the killing of another human being.

I've pondered this question a bit since reading it and while I do appreciate the high ideals expressed by the various posts, I don't think it is particularly wrong (in fact it would be OK as suggested by the question) to kill someone if its convenient, expedient or beneficial. One may pick the circumstances that would match their personal morale standard for any of the conditions I have suggested, but killing someone isn't specifically or particularly hard to do given the correct set of circumstances, and while jeopardy may seem to be a basis for some, it isn't a circumstance I would consider as exclusive within the conditions I suggest.

Golden Crest is a great mod. Another one I need to reload and play - but I better check and see if there is an update from the version I have on file. River tells Jayne this in the episode entitled "Trash".

All the Ayleid ruins in the vanilla game are identified at the wiki http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Ayleid_Ruins and Quela Mori is not listed. I don't seem to have a ruin by that name in my game either. Are you sure this isn't something from a mod?

I am somewhat confused by the direction of debate as "rights", be they in a constitution or some other document, are not entitlements, nor are they real. "Rights" are ideas and simply words on paper and unless there is some form of system to support such "rights", they have no meaning. In all cases, persons who wanted to be "entitled" to "rights" took the idea of "rights" and then earned them - be it through the working end of a spear, sword, arrow or gun; political action/debate; civil disobedience; or some action. The constitution of a country (any country) may identify rights, but if such rights were "entitlements" why are there so many interpretations and so much debate about what the meaning of such rights are? Why would a constitution require amendments if such rights are entitlements? Someone mentioned John Locke and the wording of a constitution. John Locke, as I recall, was of the opinion that such "rights" were not exactly entitlements, but that government should step in and take action when someone's rights were threatened. Again, this has been open to interpretation and debated endlessly by many since the constitution was written - so exactly what was it John Locke thought were "rights"? No one writes a constitution or some other document because everyone is equally "entitled" to "rights". It hangs on my office wall to remind me that what I have is earned and not given; It is the soldier, not the minister who has given us freedom of religion. It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag. It is the soldier, not the politician who has given us the freedom to vote. It is the soldier, above all other people, who prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.

I hope you have a save game before you entered the chamber. I actually wonder how many people finished this mod as it was the toughest boss I ever faced in any mod I've played. Took forever to figure out a strategy. Hmmm... have not played this in a while, may be time to load it again.

Don't fight long - do a few hits and run away - find water real quick when it gets nasty. It can be beaten, but not without dying a few times. Awesome mod though.

Challenge accepted!

The system does get abused - recently a couple of doctors were fined, lost their license, etc. for taking bribes from patients who wanted treatment sooner and paid to jump ahead of the line as it were. I know politicians have lobbied the health care system to have patients obtain treatment from sources outside of the country because the patient and politician were convinced the other treatment was better (my thought is how do they know - they are not doctors - and should desperation drive healthcare or some other process?). However, such occurrences are rare and individuals caught are usually punished for breaking the rules/laws associated with the UHC system. I think that some of the problems you suggest are not entirely solved or compounded by UHC. The whole pollution, global warming, oil supply debates likely have a bigger impact on governments forcing new cars on consumers than UHC. While there is a degree of association between health care and these issues, I think its something else other than health care that drives such issues. Smoking and body weight and not living a healthy life style are more likely an issue in a UHC country, but then countries without UHC are establishing similar rules on the population. So is it a UHC thing or is it simply that an unhealthy population causes problems for health care systems (UHC or not) and counties without such rules are looked down upon as uncaring and inhumane if they don't do something to try and control quality of life within their country? Does it actually matter if a government sets healthy lifestyle rules because they want to solve a UHC issue, because they want to be seen as a "caring" country and copy what other countries do or because health insurance companies (or even health care professionals) have lobbied governments to set such rules? While governments do pass laws and set rules, its not always a government idea - sometimes its industry, sometimes its a lobby group, sometimes its the majority of the population.

Does universal HC reduce the quality of that care? I live in a country with universal health care. My wife, daughter and brother work in the health care system. My brother and daughter have worked in countries without universal health care systems. I have the best health care and the quality is very high. Maybe I don't get immediate, on demand treatment based on my wishes and I get placed on a priority list by a doctor, but I know that I'll get treatment and it will be the best for my illness and that I can get regardless of my financial or social status. Can Universal HC reduce the options patients have? Depends on what is meant by options. I have two friends who didn't like the options for the treatment of their MS (my country says the treatment they wanted isn't proven or safe) so they went to another country for treatment. Spent tens of thousands of dollars and got about 6 weeks of some relief - one is back to where they were before, the other requires surgery to fix what was damaged by the treatment in another country. A coworker didn't like their options for cancer treatment so they went to another country, spent tens of thousands of dollars and - died. I'll admit the health care system is not perfect and sometimes they could do things a bit faster or efficiently, but this goes back to the first question on quality of care. Any doctor I've ever seen has discussed my options within the system of care available. Between the Dr. and me we have decided the best way to go in treatment. The options are available. The options I have available are not specifically "care" options. Do I want a private room instead of a ward - well that's an option if I want it, but I or my insurance pays the difference. Do I want a 24 hour nurse instead of a ward nurse? Well yes I can get that too, but again either I or my insurance is paying for it. Can Universal HC be used as a social and political tool? Perhaps not so much as a social tool (I'm not sure how that would work anyway), but politicians use the presence or absence of health care all the time to scare voters. No one wants to be in the position of not having health care when they need it, as opposed to when they can afford it.