My point still stands. You cannot compare the two. The characters in game speak of experience, verifiable facts. Ulysses has a theory which you can agree with or not. Considering that he brings no actual facts to the table, I disagree with his theory. If you agree with theories which aren't backed up by facts, you are simply believing things you wish to be true.
Actually what Dale says is called an anecdote, not a fact, and the aggregate of anecdotes is not data. If we're going to speak of facts let's also be clear that while in colloquial terms a theory is a guess, in science it represents the highest standard of proof; in essence what a successful hypothesis becomes. What Dale says represents his opinion, and logically if we're reliant on second hand accounts then we ought to take the view of people with the most experience and inside knowledge. For all we know Dale is going to get screwed over the way every group that ever allies with the Legion does. What we do know is that he speaks of how things are for a caravaner. What we also know is that he's aware of the slavery, and doesn't factor this in when he describes the 'safety' of their territory. So we also know that he can turn a blind eye to things so long as they don't affect him adversely. Which basically means that he's a liar. If I wanted to learn about what North Korea was like I probably wouldn't check out their website, I'd look for people who left b/c they realized how terrible it was/were going to be killed. Frankly I think that applies here as well.
On another note, you seem to arguing as though JG and Ulysses haven't seen Legion territory. They're fictional characters. The limit of what they say in game isn't the same as what they know. For instance, we can assume that that generic Legion npcs know all about the Legion, and yet you can't even get them to say much more than Aye, true to Caesar (or whatever it is). So you can't say that their guesses aren't backed by facts. We don't know all of these facts, but we never do. So basically you're arguing that we should favor less reliable anecdotes, and accept your guess over characters who were with the Legion from the beginning from some of the highest positions of authority. The fact that I have to explain all this is just getting sad.
"You misinterpret what I said. I'll put it simpler: I did not take issue with the fact that you called the Legion a cult of personality."
Well that's a lie, but feel free to edit your earlier posts to hide it.
"I take issue with the fact that you do not go on to explain how it is relevant to our discussion. Without explaining
why it is a negative influence on the Legion, you can repeat the term as many times as you like, but it still will mean nothing."
It's a significant facet of their society, its culture, leadership, and military. It is the foundation of their propaganda. It's an integral component of their conditioning/indoctrination/training. But while we're on the topic of things that are self explanatory. Why is slavery relevant? Why is their lack manufacturing relevant? Why is anything relevant?
"1. I disagree with this premise. Without threat of revolution, you cannot call a nation unstable."
Lol, b/c that's exactly where revolution starts. Someone just threatens it apropos of nothing. There's no preamble or anything. Nope. Don't bother reading about the years preceding every revolution that has ever happened. Definitely not relevant. Moving on.
"There needs to be a group within the population that wants to overthrow the current government AND
this group needs to have sufficient power to overthrow the government. Again, you are seeing things which you find undesirable and falsely labeling them as unstable."
False, also did I mention all the slaves? I'm pretty sure they don't want to be slaves. Or that given the structure of the Legion that there are almost certainly more women than men. Or that slaves tend to outnumber citizens in these cases, as was the case at times in the American south and Ancient Greece (e.g Sparta). Shall I remind you that we have defectors and other Legion who escaped/survived execution, one of which raised an army to fight against a Legion ally and the other was prepared to nuke them? Also killing the males that fight against slavery (like any number of people who were conquered *and* killed by slaver states), doesn't constitute a lack of males that want to overthrow the government.
Other totally random examples include infectious diseases due to lack of sanitation (from lack of science maybe?), an economy dependent on a volatile commodity such as oil (did I mention that slaves are a commodity that tends to not like being a commodity?), or a nation is simply cursed with such things (resource curse, like I dunno electricity and water), a belligerent nation can create too many enemies (ancient Rome, for some reason that seems vaguely relevant), nations can also fail to adapt to a changing world (say one which is experiencing a technological renaissance in the aftermath of a dark age), etc.
"2. That they do not exist anymore cannot be attributed to the fact that they 'used dogma to dictate state policy' as all states use a set of morals and values as a base for what is acceptable and productive. In fact, it was primarily external factors which caused the demise of these nations, not internal ones."
XD
LOL
Wow. I'll try not rub it in, but you just made a complete fool of yourself.
"3. I never said there was no discontent in North Korea. However, discontentedness is not the same as rebellion. For rebellion, a group needs power."
The word you used rebellion and that which was described is rebellion. There are failed and successful ones, but you seem to think only the latter counts. Also take note of how many officials/military officers are regularly killed there, which is indicative of internal power struggles. As is the assassination of Kim family members who were potential successors.
"4. What are you arguing? Do you wish to believe Legion lands are unsafe, despite first-hand accounts of the contrary? You're free to believe whatever you want, just don't expect to be able to convince other people.
Joshua Graham and Ulysses (I don't actually remember what Silus says) only express that they
believe the Legion will eventually collapse, but don't bring a compelling argument as to why they believe this to be the case. This is why I put more value in those who present first-hand experience, rather than just a general feeling."
I'm arguing that enslaving half the population and genocidal imperialism does not make for a stable country. As indicated by the first-hand accounts of former top Legion members and any character in the game with half a brain. So basically just the obvious really. Like say, the fact that
slavery is an act of violence. Which means there are an absurd number of people being victimized every second of their life. Take that and the fact that everyone else is forced into the military, to be indoctrinated and used as cannon fodder unless they become unflinching, efficient killers who will do anything including use children, torture, and rape. Which means that Legion territory is not safe, it's actually insanely dangerous no matter what you do. Either you're a slave or a soldier. You live as a victim, or are being sent to your death. So you're free to keep pretending that a handful of unreliable anecdotes constitutes a series of silver bullets for your 'theory', but this is starting to get awful boring.
"It is most certainly not the same. I disagree however that it would have a
negative influence. It would probably create stronger people. I'm in the army myself so I speak of first-hand experience when I say the bonding that takes place with the people around you whilst experiencing hardships of military training and education is similar to that of a family. The harsher the conditions, the tighter the bond. Any account of war veterans will confirm this. The people around you become like brothers and (good) superiors become like fathers. You claim that this has a
negative influence (but do nothing to back this up), yet companies like to hire people with military backgrounds because their upbringing has made them disciplined, stable and confident."
...you're using a situation where people grow up in communities with actual parents as an example, of how kidnapping children and raising them as soldiers instead would be better? Do you even hear yourself?
"I'm not wondering about anything. I'm telling you to present me with more than just a blank statement that provers that women's empowerment creates a stronger society."
I just did. Whereas you just used a wikipedia article that has this at the top...
"This article
needs additional citations for verification. Please help
improve this article by
adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
(August 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"
So you clearly neither read what I write, if you did you'd realize that I prefaced describing the NCRs use of ambush and false retreat as "the tactics they used", nor what you write. Which also explains a lot.
"This directly refutes what you're saying. You're just too stubborn to admit you're wrong."
Oh, I'm sorry. I'll come back later. I didn't realize you were talking to yourself.
"Game mechanics aren't fact. If we'd go by game mechanics I could argue that the NCR was destroyed by a courier armed with a switchblade. I see no point in such a discussion."
I didn't reference game mechanics. I referenced the content of the game. Events, things that happened, as well as quest outcomes which can and some eventually do become canon. Until canon is confirmed they constitute what can happen, not what has happened in the Fallout world. Though sometimes canon is contradicted, story events are rarely if ever altered--and again the null position dictates that we go within the limits established until these limits are changed. We can rule out switchblade massacres b/c we can choose not to be idiots. That kind of detail is never specified in canon. ;D
I'll just go ahead and ignore your latest repetition of describing yourself, and asking me to repeat everything you decided not to read.
"There's absolutely no reason why life in Legion territory should be the same as in the army.
You're also missing the real point, namely: The Legion's army is not dependent on it's supply lines contrary to it's NCR counterpart, because they can live off the land, and live with very little."
So do they have farms and static settlements or they not? You can't just hop between those two positions to avoid the fact that neither situation works for your argument.
1.Overextension
You yourself described overextension in relation to their threats: powder gangers, fiends, BoS, Khans, etc. I described how all of these drains on resources, namely *soldiers*, could be solved in game. Specifically by eliminating the threats or forming alliances where possible. I also mentioned how new ally's could be gained, such as the Boomers. What I didn't mention is how improving trade and the standard of living can boost resources. While various things such as education and healthcare can boost survival rates, which relates to the available number of soldiers. Conversely the Legion infant mortality rate must be terrible. They have basically no medicine or doctors, or basic sanitation. So even if the NCR didn't already outnumber the Legion, the NCR outnumbering the Legion is inevitable. As is their increase in technological superiority, meaning that every soldier can become more effective. Which alleviates the need for numbers. Seriously, every time you ask me to repeat myself I just add new points you can't address.
2. Skirmishing was in reference to Legion territory. Where the NCR doesn't have anything to defend. The Legion has land they can't lose without starving. They also can't be both 100% nomadic and also have towns. Make up your mind already.
3. "Make your point."
Still waiting for one of yours that I haven't addressed three times over.
"That's assuming the Legion loses the 2nd Battle of Hoover Dam, which already one hell of an assumption, and moreover, assuming that the Legion hasn't learned from the 1st Battle of Hoover Dam. There's really nothing to back either of these assumptions up."
It's one of the game endings. That makes it a definite possibility. Both the NCR and Legion ending have what you might call 1/4 odds. The Legion taking Hoover Dam however has only a 25% chance (odds are different than chances in this case), as the other three all have them losing. So, actually, the NCR wins the battle in 3 out of the four endings. Them holding the dam afterward is only one ending, so that's what we're discussing but I think it lends credence to that possibility. Also of note is the fact that the Legion ending is the least popular, and no one knows if there's ever going to be a followup game. So just in case that wasn't perfectly clear, the Legion ending is never going to be canon. However, until then it is possible that the Legion wins. <- That is called intellectual integrity. Whereas what you are doing is just pathetic.
I never assumed they learned nothing, I said if anyone can learn the others moves its not the Legion.
"Also, you cannot discredit Lanius as being a capable leader when we're talking about Caesar's succession, but try to use him as a credible source when he speaks of matters like overextensions (which is grand strategy level). Make up your mind. He's either a conquering maniac with no eye for politics (and thus an untrustworthy source to be citing on matters of politics), or he is a capable strategist. You cannot take both these stances."
Yes actually I can. Being an good leader and being a reliable source of information are two different things. Comparing aptitude for a role, and the veracity of an observation makes no sense. I'm not calling him a liar, and he has literally no reason to lie. Therefore he was being sincere. Not that he has any reason to tell you they're overextended, but then again he's not a politician. He's a military leader. Like Joshua Graham. One of which canonically failed to lead the Legion to victory, and the other in 3 out of 4 possible canon endings does the same.
"1. Provide a source for there being NVA law enforcement in U.S. occupied towns."
Provide a source for half the shit you say about real countries and wars? Also, North Vietnam was founded in 1945. You think they had no law enforcement until vietnam reunified? Ooh, can I just link you to the North Vietnam wikipedia page and call that an unassailable argument, or do only you get to do that?
"2. So does the Legion, unless" another 30 seconds have passed, and you changed your mind again?
3. "...Vietnam was also a musquito compared to the United States."
Did American forces outnumber Vietcong forces in the actual theater though? Casualties suggest otherwise, but I can't find a source that states who outnumbered who on the battlefield. Or even just in Vietnam as a whole.
"The NCR and the Legion are much more closely matched, so I do not see how Vietnam being a proxy war makes any difference. I do not see how Vietnam being a proxy war makes any difference."
You don't see how having a superpower and a bunch of their allies support your war helps?
"What would prevent those forces to leave the town when the NCR comes marching in? What would infact prevent the entire town from simply being forced to leave their homes and levied into the army by the Legion? There's no strategic loss as a result of leaving small settlements to be occupied by the NCR. That's called Scorched Earth. It would almost certainly be applied by the Legion in such a scenario. Ironic how I wouldn't even have thought of this if it wasn't for your argument."
If they left they'd lose whatever they left behind. Buildings for one thing, more if they can't magically retreat faster than the NCR can approach, when they're weighed down with literally everything else they own. Also Legion military doctrine. No retreat remember?
"It's another assumption to state that people are in fact unhappy about the Legion. We cannot look into people's heads, and I personally don't find it hard to believe that people who used to live in tribes under the harsh conditions of the wasteland would happily accept Legion rule, regardless of whether they have rights or not. You need to understand that the people living under Legion rule have an entirely different set of morals and values that may not correspond with what you think is desirable."
'Ah yes, slavery is okay because they don't mind it--really!'
"1. How do you suggest supplying an army without setting up supply lines?"
Same way anyone else did it before supply lines were invented. Same as the Legion.
"Without supplies the NCR army would grind to a halt because they are not hardy enough to survive on the land, nor have the morale for such grueling conditions."
Based on what exactly?
"2. I already have refuted this, as guerilla warfare can only be carried out if your strategic resources aren't vulnerable to counter attack."
I already dealt with this 'point', as it was applies to a situation that was inapplicable.
3.More assumptions that I've already addressed.
"No, this is about your argument about slave auxillaries not being very compelling."
What?
"1. Medicine is a double-edged blade. Caesar forbids extensive use of modern medicine because he believes resources should not be attributed to saving the weak, but rather to strengthen the strong. It also further simplifies the Legion's supply situation."
Right, because that's what every army in the world up until the Korean war said: I just don't give a shit if most of my soldiers die of cholera and malnutrition, because they were weak. *slow clap* Brilliant strategy.
"2. This is true only if the NCR can provide safety to it's lands."
Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 establish that they do in California, and Fallout New Vegas establishes they can in Nevada. Strange how that doesn't magically change when you cross state lines.
"3. I disagree. There's no reason why the Legion couldn't grow both in population and in productivity."
Is that with or without conquest? because I addressed both. Oh well, it doesn't matter. Kind of like continuing this conversation.
"In productivity the NCR has the advantage, but it also deals with the more complicated supply situation. In terms of population the Legion may lose lives due to sickness and other medical issues, but they also dedicate their entire female population to childbearing and caretaking."
Yet they don't work the land so their food supplies within a territory are capped to subsistence levels. More babies, same amount of food, equals more dead babies.
"4. Why would the Legion not work the land? There's nothing to suggest that they're incapable of doing so. Their army is simply capable of living mostly off the land and looting when they have to."
You keep saying they don't. I also addressed a what if scenario where they do.
As for your latest round of smarmy personal insults, no you have not taken the high ground. Your arguments have been poor, and I have criticized your arguments. You made it personal, and I returned fire. Then you doubled down and made a complete ass of yourself. I shouldn't have responded in kind, but I did read everything you wrote and took the time to explain things to you extensively. This is the last message I will waste sending. I only hope you can finally put forward a reasoned argument in my absence. If not, enjoy the last words.
