So Boerd

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Magic Magnum said
I believe in human rights, but not on faith.Humanity has been proven to function better when medical and education is covered, so they can focus more on other matters. Humans tend to be more effective in a job/field of their choosing/skill set rather than being forced to pick cotton. More advanced nations tend to allow free of speech, which allows for more ideas to be spread meaning more advancement over all.In other words, proof and evidence based.

Because I don't doubt human rights, I must resort to a thought experiment.

Suppose you and I are in a plane crash on a desert island. I am paralyzed, a quadriplegic and to prevent you claiming the need for human company, unable to speak, while you are unscathed. Why should you try to keep me alive?

Also, the first society to acknowledge human rights did so with no evidence. Were they irrational?

Colliding Worlds: Europe 1200 AD

Any ideas thus far, Hamster?

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Don't you have faith in human rights, Gwazi?

World in Revolution: 1861

MagnificentOne said
I shouldn't have anything to worry about. In OTL, the revolt was sparked off due to the Taiping armies that were approaching Shaanxi, which can't possibly be the case any longer.

That particular flashpoint is gone, but indubitably the tension remains.

World in Revolution: 1861

Also, heads up China.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungan_revolt_(1862%E2%80%9377)

World in Revolution: 1861

AegonVI said
But there are other options. I could exhaust my opponents morale and make them unwilling to fight.Or if I can hold out long enough where Lincoln isn't re-elected, then perhaps I can find peace with a new leader.EDIT: That's Charlotte, North Carolina they're at, right?

To what end? You can't project power into the Americas. Eventually the Union will wage another war to get you back.

Fallout: The Post-Nuclear Role-playing Game

The bottom line, emboldened and underlined in the very first post. No, you know what? Forget it. I'll just quote it here for you to save you the effort.

See, that says there are no spots left. That would be why there's a waitlist. I can't fill a full spot, can I? So instead, I will wait for a spot. I am asking the GM if there is a list of similar people. wait+list=waitlist

World in Revolution: 1861

AegonVI said
Thank you all for your thoughts on my strategy, but I really do think I can hold out on this war and win by attrition... So, Byrd? Outcast? Second round of war orders? That all seemed to take place early in the year.

Attrition only works if you can exhaust your opponent's resources faster than he can deplete yours, or you can exhaust the populace. The first is practically impossible, and the second is
improbable.

World in Revolution: 1861

Pasta Sentient said
Well considering we are at peace right now...I really hope I don't have to get into a war with the Union. Again. But if I do...I think the people would be more likely to support it considering that the Union is the aggressors. That said....I really don't wanna fight the Union. Too much going on at home/colonies to deal with that.

See, this is why Constantinople makes me nervous. Hypothetically, if say France attacks you, I have to come help. France attacks me, can you even help?

World in Revolution: 1861

We have thus far avoided Sherman's march to the Sea and Lee's offensives into the Union, not to mention Gettysburg. Union will likely be stronger (and coming for Canada)