[quote=Jolanda Swan]Heh, I feel this is the Princess all over again.
Charming candidate with a palatable platform that would be fine to support… if it came from a different candidate.
Virginia is a devil. She harvests souls. She is working for the Brass Embassy even if her current campaign is not supported by them.
She tries to kill you repeatedly, she never hides that she is not to be trusted, she never tries to be… not a Devil.
Of course she is about intellectual curiosity too - does evil have to be blunt? But just because you share an interest doesn’t make her Good for the Soul.
On the other hand, the DTC came up with an agenda to help the disenfranchised, the clay men, the rubberies, the have-nots, but everyone focused on how boring she was instead.
So why not say it how it is? Virginia, a Devil and a Killer, runs for election and she managed to come up with an inoffensive platform. Good for her.
Still a Devil and an agent of Hell though.[/quote]
[li]
I just got back from disrupting Madame Shoshana’s platform by…dressing up and pretending to be her until she ran away crying. And while keeping spoilers at a minimum-suffice to say she may be a big part of the reason why Mrs. Plenty’s even running. So hell-I’m just voting for the one candidate I feel assured is fully invested in the job. Besides, she actually has a clearcut agenda which is more than I can say for the other two.
I’ve never made any pretense of voting for the candidate I like, regardless of morality. Yes she’s a Devil, a killer, and someone who tried to kill me many, many expeditions ago before I became elligible for the expeditions that are apparently too hard for her. You know what that tells me? That she’s got great potential as a politician. I mean, she did all that AND talked all those Temperance ladies into backing her! If that’s not a way with words I don’t know what is!
Traits that make a good option better can make a bad option worse. A lot of people backed Adolph Hitler because he had great political potential and a way with words.
once again, the problem isn’t that she’s a stooge of the brass embassy or lying to us, it’s that she often acts as an agent of hell and will continue to be so if she becomes mayor[li]
[quote=Siankan]Traits that make a good option better can make a bad option worse. A lot of people backed Adolph Hitler because he had great political potential and a way with words.[/quote]And the Godwin prize goes to…!
Soshana’s predictions seem to be hogwash most of the times, but the disaster she is predicting is absolutely on point - not saying more until everyone has had the opportunity to play the card, of course!
Re Virginia’s “scientific” approach to London’s health - it’s not so comforting when you realise that science experiments are not the same as remedies. Experiments are performed on the subject to see if they get better - or if important parts go black and fall off…
[quote=Siankan]Now this is wordplay. A benefit which is given only to hasten one’s downfall is not truly a benefit. No calf would be jealous of the steer on full feed, if he knew that it is a sign the steer is destined for slaughter. No one is likely to wish himself to be a pochteca’s "bathed slave," even though he be pampered and feted before he is sacrificed and eaten. To divorce a minor benefit from harmful intention is disingenuous.[/quote]I’m seeing a false choice here, the same as the analogy of fattening a turkey. I agree; no free person is likely to wish to be a pochteca’s "bathed slave" - it forfeits life, and it forfeits all further opportunity for experience. The minor benefit gained cannot be divorced from the harmful end state. However, that is not the kind of choice that this Election presents. It is not a choice between staying alive or being pampered and slaughtered. The soul trade continues regardless; spirifrage continues regardless. The choice is between the status quo and being offered tools for self-improvement (which may pamper the soul as an ulterior motive). Compare the sacrifice that is bathed and fed well to a sacrifice that is kept barely alive before the slaughter. Is it not reasonable that the latter may wish to become the former? Being killed is not in one’s best interest. That’s the act that causes harm.
Regardless, I’m not convinced that this is even the right analogy. For one, compared to death in real life, the loss of a soul is incomparable. One is an end to experience; the other merely a shift in perspective. Furthermore, animals are slaughtered without the ability to deny humans the right to their meat; while spirifrage is largely the territory of human criminals, not devils, while the legal trade of souls is consensual on both ends. You note, "A benefit which is given only to hasten one’s downfall is not truly a benefit", but Virginia’s platform is not built to hasten London’s downfall. Life is not a zero-sum game; a devil benefiting doesn’t mean London can’t also benefit.
–
[quote=Siankan]Frankly, the entire Virginia argument seems to me to say that the means justify the end: who cares about the endgame, the long-term consequences, so long as we have peace and comfort now? That is a dangerous line of reasoning for any body politic.[/quote]My understanding of the Virginia argument is that her policies of public works, modern medicine, individual self-improvement are best-suited among the candidates this year for achieving the end of improving the quality of life in London, as well as for being the most feasible plan given the highly limited authority of the Mayor’s office. It’s far from encouraging "peace and comfort now" (for that, Mrs Plenty’s campaign is far better suited for trying to enforce an illusion of normalcy for the duration of a year without care of what comes after), but rather setting into motion sustainable projects capable of improving London.
The Virginia question is, at its roots, a matter of interpretation. Will Virginia’s platform bring more harm or good for London? I hold the position that not only would it do more good than the alternatives, but that it is a net good because the end of improving public health in London improves quality of life across the board, gives individuals greater mobility, and alleviates inequality. To those with a different perspective, I’d be happy to hear it.
Thank you. I’ll put it on the shelf next to the Snark Cup.
We can use Vladimir Lenin as our example, if you’d prefer. Or Joseph McCarthy (to make sure we’ve circled all the way around the political table). Or Alexander VI. History is littered with popular, politically savvy orators who created disaster. A silver tongue is a neutral tool, to be used for good or ill as its owner sees fit. It is certainly not, in itself, qualification for high office.
Just a clarification: Ms Plenty offers ‘a moment’s peace.’ She acknowledges that you cannot ask for more; she doesn’t promise security, or stability or something like that, just a brief respite from shenanigans.
I mean, this is quite the unique campaign promise, isn’t it?
[quote=Julius de Poisson]Re Virginia’s "scientific" approach to London’s health - it’s not so comforting when you realise that science experiments are not the same as remedies. Experiments are performed on the subject to see if they get better - or if important parts go black and fall off…[/quote]I agree with your broad point that experimental treatments ought to be viewed with caution, but I think it mischaracterizes Virginia’s policies. We can judge the policies for ourselves because they’re not exactly new, experimental ideas for us. Medicine, for instance, or living somewhere with good air quality is beneficial to one’s health. Physical exercise - while it strains your insides to the breaking point so that when it heals, it’s stronger - has been proven to have health benefits. Now, Virginia’s "spiritual" callisthenics are a lot more questionable and untested, but her policies seem less "mad scientist" and more "21st century health and fitness program".
[quote=Jolanda Swan]Just a clarification: Ms Plenty offers ‘a moment’s peace.’ She acknowledges that you cannot ask for more; she doesn’t promise security, or stability or something like that, just a brief respite from shenanigans.
I mean, this is quite the unique campaign promise, isn’t it?[/quote]It is quite unique, and I really do love Miriam as a character, but the problem is that I don’t think it’s reasonable to kick problems down the road like that. Furthermore, there will be black swans, and the Mayor’s office doesn’t really have the authority needed to enforce that respite. Overall, it seems more panem et circenses - bread and circuses - to me: keep London alive and keep it distracted.
(This will also be my last post here today since I have to prepare for sleep)
[quote=Jolanda Swan]Soshana’s predictions seem to be hogwash most of the times, but the disaster she is predicting is absolutely on point - not saying more until everyone has had the opportunity to play the card, of course![/quote]But the Ministry? I mean, REALLY.
[quote=Jolanda Swan]Just a clarification: Ms Plenty offers ‘a moment’s peace.’ She acknowledges that you cannot ask for more; she doesn’t promise security, or stability or something like that, just a brief respite from shenanigans.
I mean, this is quite the unique campaign promise, isn’t it?[/quote] It sounds suspiciously like a promise of a humdrum year of tedium.
I am not voting for Ms Plenty by the way - even if I wanted to, her own flash lay revelations disabused me of that notion. Just pointing out that unlike other candidates, FL or real world, she is just suggesting we all take a break! Unique, indeed.