: Sion Hidden OP in Blitz? (Watch video for proof.)
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: I love the trick of doubling back from the bushes, got them everytime :)
> [{quoted}](name=Unprepared2,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AgYpLLEN,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-07-27T12:39:48.343+0000) > > I love the trick of doubling back from the bushes, got them everytime :) Thanks man. {{sticker:slayer-jinx-wink}}
Håppy (NA)
: I've never seen a more awkward dive
Rioter Comments
: I love me some autofill supports
I love me some autofill players. Who don't realize that every little attack by creeps to towers is permanent and can not be undone. So attempting to save the turret is the true goal. I have ULT'ed minion waves to save towers, while the ADC is by inhib. They get upset. You took all the cs! 1 - You were never gonna get there in time. 2 - I saved tower and earned the gold that would of been wasted if turret last hit it. Get real.
: ty man for your time
> [{quoted}](name=DÕNALD J TRÜMP,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=3Xo3u5tw,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2018-07-22T02:59:35.521+0000) > > ty man for your time I added/edited the info so you could learn how to do it.
: how to activate?
> [{quoted}](name=DÕNALD J TRÜMP,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=3Xo3u5tw,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-07-22T02:49:20.505+0000) > > how to activate? It's under your settings. Idk. It's like how you can use the pet controls on tab or 't', for like Annie and Shaco clones you can move them the same way by just holding down the button and moving the mouse. However I changed my mouse to this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgMMxTofZ5A https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1bo2nk/guide_to_easy_kiting_left_click_attack/
: Please add move without clicking feature
They have that, but it's weird. I have tried a few games with it and its not always useful or maybe I'm not used to it. Because this feels like you have to stop - pause - re-aim for ability - cast ability - try to move again delay. It's meh. However, if you are using it in a dodging sense, you can become like flow master chi with it. Totally zen and you are the matrix, dodging everything. Just don't try to attack or do anything else, it ruins it.
: More class specific items
I hear you, but also you got to realize you have tank items you would have to try and restrict. Does that mean a marksmen or mage can no longer get warmogs, spirit visage or etc. I think it could balance if only tanks could get tank items, ADC get AD items, Mages get AP items, Supports get utility. But gold generation is a problem as well. Support items, kleptomacy, pyke, bounties. Really what I think they should do is do a re-damage scaling. Like when WoW was like... you just did 7.8 BILLION DAMAGE... then they brought it down to 17,000 or whatever. The damage was the same, but the numbers were smaller. It also makes balancing easier. When you 1-SHOT someone with 4k health and 'x' damage combo. Is a lot different if they had 100 health max hp bar. And your abilities did like 10-15 damage a piece.
: More class specific items
I thought about this and while it does make sense and would balance the game. Rito will never do it. They can barely balance abilities and runes. You think adding in item restrictions will help this? Hell no. What would happen is that some 'core' item from some champion would be stolen and restricted away making them unplayable. It would be months or years before that champion is even looked at because that item is now off limits to them.
: [Suggestion] Replacement for Warmogs on ARAM
You are like saying.... 'Let's paint the sky blue. When it's already blue. ' Really all warmogs is... is bonus health regeneration. To replace it with bonus health regeneration isn't really fixing what they are seeing as a problem.
Rioter Comments
Lohrr (NA)
: {{item:3056}}
> [{quoted}](name=Lohrr,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9Fe5tEbV,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2018-07-17T06:50:58.479+0000) > > {{item:3056}} Right, I agree. I just think cc in OP comment was more inclined to abilities over items. Either way it already happened. Which is the irony.
: "play safe under the tower so they can't kill you"
> [{quoted}](name=Best Fiddle,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9Fe5tEbV,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-07-17T05:23:09.890+0000) > Seriously, next you'll be hearing about how you'll be able to disable towers with cc. {{champion:432}} Yes... it happened already.
crispy66 (NA)
: Supports don't belong to ADC's, the ADC's are cursed to have to have to lane with supports
> [{quoted}](name=crispy66,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=VKTBGH4u,comment-id=000200000002,timestamp=2018-07-16T08:59:21.053+0000) > > Supports don't belong to ADC's, the ADC's are cursed to have to have to lane with supports >.> You used different words to try and state the same thing.
Rioter Comments
: Only the most fun off meta things here
{{champion:143}}{{item:3146}} {{item:3135}} {{item:3151}} {{item:3116}} {{item:3029}} {{item:3065}} Not in that order. But you get the idea.
saltran (EUW)
: No, it will never work and when solo lane adcs are a thing Rito nerfs them like they did with Lucian Mid. Quinn and Corky are allowed to be solo lane because they were reworked for it and moved fom Botlane to solo lane. And don't come witht he Vayne top because it's straight up bad, that's why Rito doesn't nerf her top, because is irrelevant.
> [{quoted}](name=saltran,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=VKTBGH4u,comment-id=0002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-07-15T08:06:36.001+0000) > > No, it will never work and when solo lane adcs are a thing Rito nerfs them like they did with Lucian Mid. Quinn and Corky are allowed to be solo lane because they were reworked for it and moved fom Botlane to solo lane. > > And don't come witht he Vayne top because it's straight up bad, that's why Rito doesn't nerf her top, because is irrelevant. An ADC reworked to handle a solo lane. I can get behind that.
Rioter Comments
: I think it would be best if supports started in mid lane and then roamed from their central starting position to side lanes as needed. Or perhaps it could be interesting if the support started off by leashing and tag-teaming with the jungler for the first clear and then pick a lane to stay in for a while. Either way would require a lot of rebalancing to roles though or we could end up with something like duo jungler and no viable positions for utility supports. Mid lane supports might push assassins out of mid as well, though perhaps some sort of double-roamer meta might form with certain supports being taken to synergize specifically with mid lane assassins. It could be really interesting but it would be very tricky to balance, and players would need prominent guidance from Riot/pro-players to teach and encourage players to shift meta or we would end up with a lot of lash back as players fail to adapt.
> [{quoted}](name=Painted Celt,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=VKTBGH4u,comment-id=000200000001,timestamp=2018-07-15T04:48:05.062+0000) > > I think it would be best if supports started in mid lane and then roamed from their central starting position to side lanes as needed. Or perhaps it could be interesting if the support started off by leashing and tag-teaming with the jungler for the first clear and then pick a lane to stay in for a while. Either way would require a lot of rebalancing to roles though or we could end up with something like duo jungler and no viable positions for utility supports. Mid lane supports might push assassins out of mid as well, though perhaps some sort of double-roamer meta might form with certain supports being taken to synergize specifically with mid lane assassins. It could be really interesting but it would be very tricky to balance, and players would need prominent guidance from Riot/pro-players to teach and encourage players to shift meta or we would end up with a lot of lash back as players fail to adapt. I completely agree. But encouraging something like this might be truly amazing. As new gameplay and design choices could become a thing. Mage toplane, Solo Support Mid, Bruiser or ADC bot. Then maybe even two junglers. So it's a lot more like volley ball. With trade interactions. Players running 5 lanes instead of 3, the extra two lanes being the jungle in a sense. Maybe scuttle turns into blue and red buff. Like, who knows. Try new things out.
BigVi (NA)
: An easy solution to fixing the current damage crisis
That's like saying to clean up after a nuclear warhead is just to avoid the fallout. There is so many other radiating issues that should be addressed.
Kirito K (NA)
: IF the enemy team remakes you should get lp
Because with logic you can defeat any statement. IE) What if players learned a way to go into flex games and constantly dodge/remake. They could easily win trade, with one team getting LP and one team not and staying the same. Soon you could easily have team boosting. People will use and abuse your idea, unless there was a way to protect it. However, coming up with a way to protect it causes even more problems and issues to fix. So its just simpler to keep it as is.
: {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-popcorn}} People were asking for marksmen to get removed and open up bot lane, now enjoy the nerfs incoming when solo laners are moving there.
> [{quoted}](name=SatomiKun,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=8sa2GhME,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-07-14T21:51:13.468+0000) > > {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-popcorn}} > People were asking for marksmen to get removed and open up bot lane, now enjoy the nerfs incoming when solo laners are moving there. I don't play new Swain. I liked old Swain more. {{sticker:slayer-jinx-catface}}
: why not just delete marksmen from the game? why not just have all 5 people mid? why not just not have a jungler and instead have 2 in top and bot? oh right, because those strategies don't end up working in the long run, and the meta evolved from S1/S2 the way it did because they were the most optimal playstyles! stop trolling your teams and just play your role correctly!
> [{quoted}](name=JoeAnarchy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=VKTBGH4u,comment-id=000d,timestamp=2018-07-15T03:49:55.694+0000) > > why not just delete marksmen from the game? > why not just have all 5 people mid? > why not just not have a jungler and instead have 2 in top and bot? > oh right, because those strategies don't end up working in the long run, and the meta evolved from S1/S2 the way it did because they were the most optimal playstyles! stop trolling your teams and just play your role correctly! All of these are great questions. Shame; I don't think you would think of decent answers for any of them. Stop trying to hold the game to a certain mold when Riot is always going to be experimenting. If they wanted things to stay a certain way, they wouldn't change them. Repeatedly even after player feed back. But they still do. That's why strategies and play styles change. Not everyone like's to be the cookie cutter image. Just let go.
: > [{quoted}](name=Wolf and Gun,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=YILejdlJ,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2018-07-14T21:38:41.570+0000) > > Meh, I don't believe in that statement. > > But if you do, then it supports your viewpoint. early lvl 1 damage will beat the +15 hp you get at lvl 1 from resolve, you arent getting bonus armor or mr from it at all unless you take conditioning and it dont kick in til ten mins which is usually after lane dominance is decided , hence why every one takes second wind over it. 2ndly if you are taking resolve primary you arent looking for damage you are looking for sustain and not feeding early, which most tanks have no lane pressure or damage so they need all the sustain and survive-ability they can get . its not like the old rune system where i could run armor red, hp yellows, armor quints and mr blues and not worry about anything in lane. most of the tanky champs are shit now and have no recourse to conqueror except to be super passive and safe and hope they can get out of lane with 2 items to be effective but typically game is over or decided by that point now. for example darius vs darius one has conqueror one has grasp who wins ? the conqueror darius wins automatically
> [{quoted}](name=MrFawknSunshine,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=YILejdlJ,comment-id=0000000100000000,timestamp=2018-07-14T21:45:46.608+0000) > > early lvl 1 damage will beat the +15 hp you get at lvl 1 from resolve, you arent getting bonus armor or mr from it at all unless you take conditioning and it dont kick in til ten mins which is usually after lane dominance is decided , hence why every one takes second wind over it. 2ndly if you are taking resolve primary you arent looking for damage you are looking for sustain and not feeding early, which most tanks have no lane pressure or damage so they need all the sustain and survive-ability they can get . > its not like the old rune system where i could run armor red, hp yellows, armor quints and mr blues and not worry about anything in lane. most of the tanky champs are shit now and have no recourse to conqueror except to be super passive and safe and hope they can get out of lane with 2 items to be effective but typically game is over or decided by that point now. > > for example darius vs darius one has conqueror one has grasp who wins ? > > the conqueror darius wins automatically And I would play Zyra in the domination tree and still wreck a conqueror Darius. Maybe a phase rush Darius would stand a better chance. Either way, build what you want. Play what you want. Obviously some things are weak and some are strong. But chose what is best for you. I think Resolve is one of the best designed trees. Sucks that damage is so much more emphasized in this game.
: What would you do in my case? :(
Play at the library. They usually have free internet. Starbucks. McDonalds. Wal-mart. Steal your neighbors wifi. Go to a friends house. Have a friend do it for you.
: > [{quoted}](name=Wolf and Gun,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=YILejdlJ,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-07-14T21:33:06.502+0000) > > When every bruiser is dipping into the resolve tree for bone plating and second wind... > > I don't think it needs a buff. they dip into that 2ndary but they are taking offensive set ups which makes people who rune primary resolve at a disadvantage. a bruiser with conqueror vs a bruiser with resolve primary will auto lose cuz most of the stats from resolve has to scale where as conqueror gives ad + true damage at lvl one
> [{quoted}](name=MrFawknSunshine,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=YILejdlJ,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2018-07-14T21:35:13.767+0000) > > they dip into that 2ndary but they are taking offensive set ups which makes people who rune primary resolve at a disadvantage. > > a bruiser with conqueror vs a bruiser with resolve primary will auto lose cuz most of the stats from resolve has to scale where as conqueror gives ad + true damage at lvl one Meh, I don't believe in that statement. But if you do, then it supports your viewpoint.
: I've played Tahm Kench top. After a while, the enemy will never stand near you, even if it means losing cs. They know to fear me. :D
> [{quoted}](name=Baron Barian,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=VKTBGH4u,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2018-07-14T21:28:55.808+0000) > > I've played Tahm Kench top. After a while, the enemy will never stand near you, even if it means losing cs. > > They know to fear me. :D Hell yes. Show them the power of that... tongue.
: RESOLVE rune tree - is underpowered and limited!!
When every bruiser is dipping into the resolve tree for bone plating and second wind... I don't think it needs a buff.
: So why has Darius not been nerfed yet?
One doesn't just nerf a God-King. {{sticker:sg-jinx}}
: The average marksman is too vulnerable to be played at top lane. {{champion:22}} {{champion:202}} {{champion:222}} {{champion:145}} {{champion:96}} {{champion:21}} {{champion:15}} If you play these solo top, they will most likely just get brutally murdered from ganks. Many people already pointed it out, just get your bot laner to play a bruiser.
That's a defeatist attitude. I've seen plenty of ADC's manage on their own top. Just cut the ADC role from the assumed support role.
Rexxiee (NA)
: Swain needs hard nerfs
There is a reason why some players hate pro players and their picks. {{sticker:slayer-jinx-unamused}}
Leto GT (EUW)
: Then you give a free drake. Bring the bruiser bot instead. There's a reason the duo lane is bot, it's to protect drake.
> [{quoted}](name=wG Got2Cool,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=VKTBGH4u,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-07-14T20:46:14.361+0000) > > Then you give a free drake. Bring the bruiser bot instead. There's a reason the duo lane is bot, it's to protect drake. Nah, a lot of junglers can solo drake. And plenty of ADC's are too afraid to lose one creep over getting a drag. I don't need an ADC by drake. I've taken plenty w/o them. Really, even when I'm supporting. I usually get more CS, Kills and objectives compared to my ADC. Most often, they are holding me back. Give me a sexy top laner who can do more then fire auto attacks from a puny marksmen weapon.
: > [{quoted}](name=Wolf and Gun,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=VKTBGH4u,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-07-14T19:47:19.365+0000) > > I'd love to separate the idea of support belonging to ADC's. > > Supports should be free to choose who they support. Actually you could that in a normal game. But the ADC is going to be alone vs 2 on bot lane. And probably you are going to be reported for trolling
> [{quoted}](name=UnknownTerritory,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=VKTBGH4u,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2018-07-14T19:56:40.586+0000) > > Actually you could that in a normal game. But the ADC is going to be alone vs 2 on bot lane. And probably you are going to be reported for trolling That's exactly my point. The mentality that it's trolling. Just let ADC's have toplane and 1v1.
: Its going to be like Smite. In smite your adc and support are in top lane
> [{quoted}](name=UnknownTerritory,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=VKTBGH4u,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-07-14T19:44:08.869+0000) > > Its going to be like Smite. In smite your adc and support are in top lane I'd love to separate the idea of support belonging to ADC's. Supports should be free to choose who they support.
Rioter Comments
: Arch Angel staff does not synergies very well with Ludens and GLP....
Rioter Comments
Thuban (NA)
: There needs to be strong consequences for surrendering
I agree. Not everyone is a Naruto-fan boy. "We can win this." Sometimes you can see ahead into the future and calculate risk. You know who won, fold early. It wasn't your hand. In Chess surrendering is considered honorable, because you realized how much they had you beat. Now some games have had amazing turn arounds and comebacks. But if 3-4 People Surrender. Just do it. {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-popcorn}}
Revoke (NA)
: Friendly reminder Quinn is disgustingly strong
I think Quinn has been hidden OP for awhile; just a lot of players didn't use her. I've always loved Quinn, and played her when she wasn't that popular. But that's just always been her kit, it really hasn't changed that much. She is just finally in an environment where she can be kinda meta and shine atm. Good for her. I don't think she needs nerfs. {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-thumbs}}
: Unpopular Popular Opinion: One of riot's being mistakes was reworking Guardian's Angel
Guardian's Angel is pretty crap now. I agree with the post. Now it only helps the snowball-y champ survive longer. I had a game where the whole enemy team built this. Because we couldn't kill them the first time or keep them dead. Everyone is running around as a mini-Zilean. They stole his ult and gave it to everyone. {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}}
: Damn this post sucks some big'ol Walrus Titties.
> [{quoted}](name=Subject 5,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GEUv3nEa,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-07-14T06:54:12.522+0000) > > Damn this post sucks some big'ol Walrus Titties. Lol. What does that even mean?
: Riot always favored AD over AP. ADs also have much better rune options.
> [{quoted}](name=HP Crookshanks,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=83ezaylr,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-07-14T06:43:50.482+0000) > > Riot always favored AD over AP. ADs also have much better rune options. Just curious, why do you state that? How was AD favored?
Thuban (NA)
: There needs to be strong consequences for surrendering
Surrendering isn't always one dimensional.
Weensw (NA)
: If you had to buy 5 of the same items and 1 boot, what item on what champion is the least bad?
: Junglers don't care what some low elo mage support thinks
> [{quoted}](name=Unstoppable Monk,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=zNb6AF6b,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-07-13T15:00:43.670+0000) > > Junglers don't care what some low elo mage support thinks Thanks for auditioning. We are sorry to inform you that your comment isn't what we are looking for at this time. Good luck at your other future endeavors.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Wolf and Gun,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=aB5QMIEE,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2018-07-13T10:43:09.431+0000) > > Plenty of people break stupid 'laws and orders' all the time for a beneficial life. > > Just because a law or an order exists doesn't mean its right. > > I think you romanticized Law and Chaos a bit much. > > Things in the US are pretty dystopian. We have a bunch of laws and orders that keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor. > > Sure we have some benefits. But compared to other countries its a bit of a joke. > > Healthcare system most people can't buy into. > > Debt Slavery with employment and low wages. > > Corporations holding global wealth over countries. > > Our democracy is a joke. > > Trump is a joke. > > And you see this as a sign of progress and laws? > > Bring in the chaos. Because 'order' has made a real mess of things. > > And the price they paid for it wasn't worth the cost. There is a difference between bad order and order being bad. Laws can improve and become better, which is what it's been doing for the last many years. The reason why human lives have been a billion times better than the days of getting rekt by wild animals and dying from drinking unclean water is because orders had become a thing and it facilitates progress. The problem with anarchy is essentially is the state of nothing, and you can't improve nothingness; and to make nothingness "better", one must create something, which is the direct opposite of it, and in this description, law. Just because you messed up and built a house of faulty designs, doesn't mean the idea of building a house is wrong or bad, it just means you need to fix this house of yours. In the end of the day, a house is still better than having no house. For another example, Ancient Greece was basically upturned because of democracy, as it was a highly primitive form of it and resulted in a state of mob rule than a society in which everyone had a say. Does this mean democracy as an idea is faulty? No. It just means the way Ancient Greeks implemented democracy was inadequate. Because people having a say is still ultimately, a good thing.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=aB5QMIEE,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2018-07-13T11:11:58.543+0000) > > There is a difference between bad order and order being bad. > > Laws can improve and become better, which is what it's been doing for the last many years. The reason why human lives have been a billion times better than the days of getting rekt by wild animals and dying from drinking unclean water is because orders had become a thing and it facilitates progress. The problem with anarchy is essentially is the state of nothing, and you can't improve nothingness; and to make nothingness "better", one must create something, which is the direct opposite of it, and in this description, law. > > Just because you messed up and built a house of faulty designs, doesn't mean the idea of building a house is wrong or bad, it just means you need to fix this house of yours. In the end of the day, a house is still better than having no house. > > For another example, Ancient Greece was basically upturned because of democracy, as it was a highly primitive form of it and resulted in a state of mob rule than a society in which everyone had a say. Does this mean democracy as an idea is faulty? No. It just means the way Ancient Greeks implemented democracy was inadequate. Because people having a say is still ultimately, a good thing. Human laws are some of the most impractical devices ever. You can try to justify the laws lead to a civilized world, but rarely in society and the world is that the case. Most laws only preserve the self interest of individual gain; while exploiting others. To just blindly state... let's build a hundred houses made of cheap materials and sell them. Just to fix them up later isn't very resourceful both in logic and sustainability. To just make up laws as we go. Not thinking about the longterm effect on society. Is both dangerous and chaotic. Laws can be unchanging and binding. They can lead to stagnation and oppression and often do.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Paroe,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=aB5QMIEE,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2018-07-13T08:02:31.147+0000) > > To be fair you can also _fight_ for peace and defend _your area_. > Imagine a lawless land where the strong dominate the weak; Thats noxian ideals. Thats the freedom darius offers. The freedom to fight for what you want. > Now imagine a land of laws and peace where the people _fight the outsiders who want to destroy their area_. This is also a freedom Darius offers - the freedom to pursue your ideals. > > Garen? Garen's order is "Bow to me and heed my will alone". He takes away freedom for a kind of peace... But a peace that stagnates and festers over time. > Garen is like a pond; Clear and safe at the beginning, but its stagnant and will eventually rot. > Darius is like a river that branches off in thousands of different places; Rough and hard to navigate, but branches off into thousands of safer streams that flow out to carve their own channels. if that "freedom" is as good as it sounds, people wouldn't have tried so hard to make rules. Because a world where everything goes, only just means the one holding a bigger bat/club rules. Subjugation of the weak and the vulnerable will be rife and any diplomatic, intellectual, and moral/ethical etc discourse will be impossible and irrelevant in the world where everyone bows to the one who can hold a bigger axe waiting to hack the other in half because they disagree with them. "Freedom to pursue your ideals" sounds good when flapped out of one's mouth, but one must realise such a thing will never be possible if the environment doesn't explicitly allows such a thing. And an environment of such gentle nature does NOT exist in nature, but instead in human designs. Tell me, how is it going to be possible for a blind person to access education without any sort of establishment, which would mean some orders are in place to create and facilitate such a thing, without having any kind of order? How is it going to be possible for a kid in the country town to access medical attendance at an affordable price and prevent the doctors from ripping them off? How is it going to be possible to forbid slavery and crimes against other individuals who can not fight back by themselves, ie the disabled, the born-frail, the old, and the young? Or how is it going to be possible to trace the responsibility of a crime, without some kind of metric like laws, to define and enforce such a thing and discourage potential future instances from taking place; or do you suppose a world full of revenge seekers over another's crime a proper forms of society? Those things don't grow on trees up for grabs, someone have to be there to create the necessary infrastructure to allow those things, which will need a gigantic resources to realise, and it can not be done without any kind of proper order in place. A world without order only ever provides ample "freedom" to those WHO ARE ALREADY IN POWER, and punishes those who are not already at the apex; the weak can not stand up for themselves, sure they have the "freedom" to fight, but we all know for a fact they can't do shit anyway precisely because they are weak and vulnerable, ie it's a fake "freedom" like a good Catch-22. If you haven't noticed anything, that "freedom" you speak of, is the exact opposite of actual freedom. Your pond vs river analogy is also utterly nonsensical in my eyes. There is a reason why human societies develop AFTER the invention of "orderly" things like language, formality, moral, laws, etc, which are all fundamental to a society's existence. Even if you want to go back into the warring states era, each states still had its own laws and order. So what exactly does chaos even bring? If you have to use the 'water' analogy, chaos is the mirage oasis in a desert; it looks good from a distance, but its "good-ness" is imagined and fueled by your desperation and is in reality non-existent, a fake promise that results in death. Unjust as fights may be, the fight for order only needs to fight ONCE, an once achieved, there will be no bloodshed; that's one hell of a bargain in comparison to endless wars, don't you think? And if orders are true to its words, reforms and whatnot can nonetheless happen, just that it will be less chaotic when it does. It's a complete fallacy that order will only means stagnation. Remember, all of the laws, moral codes, whatever, exist to SOLVE problems, not to create them. They might create problems independent from the problems that were there since the very beginning (prejudice against homosexual, for instance, was a created problem), but that's a minuscule minority to the issues they fix and the amount of lives it improves, **and also why law and order gets updated in an _orderly_ fashion**. On the other hand, pure and utter anarchy will result in absolutely nothing, and the world will be stuck in a permanent stone-age where even something as trivial as drinking water can kill you (no order, no recognised basic human rights, no establishment, no infrastructure, no clean water. One of the first attempt to "clean hydration" came in the form of the invention of alcohol in the ancient age, which required some kind of order to distribute the knowledge and mass produce it, so that people were not dying like literal flies, and a civilisation could even be had). The only liberation a world without any order can bring is death, and that's not "freedom". Remember, the sole reason why every countries are properly ordered, or at least most of them try to anyway, is because chaos lost in the wars that lasted eons with order. If you have to use your chaos ideal in application of this, people exercised their freedom to fight and die for the peaceful and progressive society the order offers, not the endless strife and destruction that will only be brought about in its absence. That should say something. Without any forms of order, no one can be productive, and the world will be permanently stuck fighting over the smallest of things. A world of endless strife is utterly counterproductive, and will ultimately results nothing. That's why rules and orders were even made, to give people chances in their own terms. Order is what both PROMISES and GRANTS a person freedom, the chaos only does the former. Therefore, to suggest that the lack of laws should be the answer, is both immature and highly uninsightful. .......... Also, as I was saying in another thread, I also find it VERY ODD that people can only see order in the worst light of dystopia, but can't do the same for chaos, in which they go out of their way to fantasise a great deal of and in the most positive way ever. I guess it's to do with media having a fetish to be as meaningless rebellious as possible, but seriously, you don't want to live in a world where orders don't exist. Wanna know how I know? Buy a 1 way ticket into the most lawless part of the world and stay there for 5 years, then come back and tell me how you think orders are BS.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=aB5QMIEE,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2018-07-13T09:00:37.672+0000) > > if that "freedom" is as good as it sounds, people wouldn't have tried so hard to make rules. Because a world where everything goes, only just means the one holding a bigger bat/club rules. Subjugation of the weak and the vulnerable will be rife and any diplomatic, intellectual, and moral/ethical etc discourse will be impossible and irrelevant in the world where everyone bows to the one who can hold a bigger axe waiting to hack the other in half because they disagree with them. > > "Freedom to pursue your ideals" sounds good when flapped out of one's mouth, but one must realise such a thing will never be possible if the environment doesn't explicitly allows such a thing. And an environment of such gentle nature does NOT exist in nature, but instead in human designs. Tell me, how is it going to be possible for a blind person to access education without any sort of establishment, which would mean some orders are in place to create and facilitate such a thing, without having any kind of order? How is it going to be possible for a kid in the country town to access medical attendance at an affordable price and prevent the doctors from ripping them off? How is it going to be possible to forbid slavery and crimes against other individuals who can not fight back by themselves, ie the disabled, the born-frail, the old, and the young? Or how is it going to be possible to trace the responsibility of a crime, without some kind of metric like laws, to define and enforce such a thing and discourage potential future instances from taking place; or do you suppose a world full of revenge seekers over another's crime a proper forms of society? Those things don't grow on trees up for grabs, someone have to be there to create the necessary infrastructure to allow those things, which will need a gigantic resources to realise, and it can not be done without any kind of proper order in place. > > A world without order only ever provides ample "freedom" to those WHO ARE ALREADY IN POWER, and punishes those who are not already at the apex; the weak can not stand up for themselves, sure they have the "freedom" to fight, but we all know for a fact they can't do shit anyway precisely because they are weak and vulnerable, ie it's a fake "freedom" like a good Catch-22. If you haven't noticed anything, that "freedom" you speak of, is the exact opposite of actual freedom. > > Your pond vs river analogy is also utterly nonsensical in my eyes. There is a reason why human societies develop AFTER the invention of "orderly" things like language, formality, moral, laws, etc, which are all fundamental to a society's existence. Even if you want to go back into the warring states era, each states still had its own laws and order. So what exactly does chaos even bring? If you have to use the 'water' analogy, chaos is the mirage oasis in a desert; it looks good from a distance, but its "good-ness" is imagined and fueled by your desperation and is in reality non-existent, a fake promise that results in death. > > Unjust as fights may be, the fight for order only needs to fight ONCE, an once achieved, there will be no bloodshed; that's one hell of a bargain in comparison to endless wars, don't you think? And if orders are true to its words, reforms and whatnot can nonetheless happen, just that it will be less chaotic when it does. It's a complete fallacy that order will only means stagnation. Remember, all of the laws, moral codes, whatever, exist to SOLVE problems, not to create them. They might create problems independent from the problems that were there since the very beginning (prejudice against homosexual, for instance, was a created problem), but that's a minuscule minority to the issues they fix and the amount of lives it improves, **and also why law and order gets updated in an _orderly_ fashion**. On the other hand, pure and utter anarchy will result in absolutely nothing, and the world will be stuck in a permanent stone-age where even something as trivial as drinking water can kill you (no order, no recognised basic human rights, no establishment, no infrastructure, no clean water. One of the first attempt to "clean hydration" came in the form of the invention of alcohol in the ancient age, which required some kind of order to distribute the knowledge and mass produce it, so that people were not dying like literal flies, and a civilisation could even be had). The only liberation a world without any order can bring is death, and that's not "freedom". > > Remember, the sole reason why every countries are properly ordered, or at least most of them try to anyway, is because chaos lost in the wars that lasted eons with order. If you have to use your chaos ideal in application of this, people exercised their freedom to fight and die for the peaceful and progressive society the order offers, not the endless strife and destruction that will only be brought about in its absence. That should say something. > > Without any forms of order, no one can be productive, and the world will be permanently stuck fighting over the smallest of things. A world of endless strife is utterly counterproductive, and will ultimately results nothing. That's why rules and orders were even made, to give people chances in their own terms. Order is what both PROMISES and GRANTS a person freedom, the chaos only does the former. Therefore, to suggest that the lack of laws should be the answer, is both immature and highly uninsightful. > > .......... > > Also, as I was saying in another thread, I also find it VERY ODD that people can only see order in the worst light of dystopia, but can't do the same for chaos, in which they go out of their way to fantasise a great deal of and in the most positive way ever. > > I guess it's to do with media having a fetish to be as meaningless rebellious as possible, but seriously, you don't want to live in a world where orders don't exist. Wanna know how I know? Buy a 1 way ticket into the most lawless part of the world and stay there for 5 years, then come back and tell me how you think orders are BS. Plenty of people break stupid 'laws and orders' all the time for a beneficial life. Just because a law or an order exists doesn't mean its right. I think you romanticized Law and Chaos a bit much. Things in the US are pretty dystopian. We have a bunch of laws and orders that keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor. Sure we have some benefits. But compared to other countries its a bit of a joke. Healthcare system most people can't buy into. Debt Slavery with employment and low wages. Corporations holding global wealth over countries. Our democracy is a joke. Trump is a joke. And you see this as a sign of progress and laws? Bring in the chaos. Because 'order' has made a real mess of things. And the price they paid for it wasn't worth the cost.
Show more

Wolf and Gun

Level 118 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion