#compelled to choose between your morals and your wellbeing!

[wired-for-weird]

your taur reblogs reminded me tht my friends keep having discussions about wether centaurs could jerk themselves off or not. like this keeps being a Reoccurring Discussion. i think the solutions we’ve gotten are:

- mage hand (specific to dnd i guess). pretty self explanatory. summon a hand to jork it.

- grind against whatever soft surface you can find.

- or. try to ?? bounce the cock against your stomach??? my friends discuss this more than i do.

you have great friends i think actually

tbh if it's purely a question of logistics I'm confident it is perfectly possible for a taur to get themselves off. real world creatures with even more inconvenient body plans- horses, dolphins, elephants, seals etc- all manage perfectly well.

really it's more about the dubcon element, for me, at least. purely in kink terms, I'm just Into the age-old trope of a creature not being able to satisfy an appetite with anything less than a Very Specific thing, and if they way they have to get it ends up being Taboo then so much the better. so a taur not being able to find any relief without a living, fighting mate to fuck appeals to me real strongly

[timberlakefan96]

“2) No. The state ought not compell you to extraordinarily sacrifice to save a dying person.”

There you go. You’re pro-choice. Congratulations.

All talk of ethics and philosophy is a smokescreen. All abortion talk is about legally sanctioned autonomy. That’s it. Can the state compel you to sacrifice your own health for the sake of another? No. Open and shut. The talk about dead babies is secondary. It’s window dressing.

And it’s sensationalist. It allows you to divide the issue into one very clearly defined dichotomy (killing babies versus not killing babies), and ignore the underlying implications and surrounding contexts.

For example, if we can prove, legally, that one human being’s well-being, as determined by circumstance, takes precedent over another’s wellbeing, it sets the legal precedent for things like above, where you can, in fact, be arrested and forced to participate as a medical donor to another against your will. Which we can all agree is bad, even if it is the exact same argument.

Also, abortion is just going to happen, whether it’s legal or not. There have been abortions as long as there have been women to have them, and equally as numerous reasons. There’s literally a recipe for it in the Bible. Outlawing abortion only outlaws *safe* abortion. It’s exactly the wrong thing you want to do, if you want people to stop having abortions, or if you want babies to stop dying. Every state where abortion is outlawed has significantly higher infant and mother mortality rates than those that don’t.

It also makes it easy to ignore the context, around which pro-life advocates tend to argue. Like, you ever notice how the people who tend to be pro-life also tend to be anti-welfare? Anti-union? Pro-industry, and anti-regulation? Pro- “traditional family”, while ignoring the fact that an unwanted pregnancy is a pretty consistent way to not get that? Right-wing, in short. It’s because being pro-life isn’t actually about saving lives, None of these people actually care about babies. A Venn diagram of American politicians who support pro-life policies but opposed a 2020 measure to make infant formula cheaper and easier to get during a shortage is a circle. It’s about feeling like you have power over other people. And in a legal sense, about *literally* having power over real people.

If you want to be *actually* pro-life, as in dedicated to saving the lives of babies, you should be dedicating yourself to making the world a better place to bring babies into, and making the transition into motherhood as simple and painless as possible; it should involve extensive parental leave and full worker protections, comprehensive healthcare and welfare, and eventually good childcare and public school options, and, in some cases, a well-funded-well-trained, fully supported foster system. And more broadly it should involve anti-poverty systems, codified and modernized basic human rights, and ways to keep our food, air, and water clean, because a baby born doesn’t mean shit if they instantly die of starvation, disease, or mistreatment, right?

But you don’t tend to see pro-life advocates crying for those things too much, do you? Not a whole lot of blogs dedicated to debating for/against extended parental leave, are there?

Because it’s easier to feel morally superior to baby killers than it is to acknowledge that a system worth living in would reduce the number of babies being killed, whether the option is available or not.

Being pro-life is just moral masturbation. It feels good in the moment but gets you no closer to your actual goal.

Also, to take your bait: your spaceship analogy sucks, because it glosses over several inconvenient realities of pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood. What if the POW was actively working to sabotage the ship? What if it wasn’t a POW, but a stow-away? A pirate? What if nobody did anything, but a part of the ship broke and you had to choose between the life of your crew and the POW? What if, even after you did everything “correctly”, the prisoner exchange process had a non-zero chance of causing your ship to explode and kill everyone on-board? And even the best case scenario left you severely damaged and forced to take weeks if not months to repair and recover? Yeah, not such an easy choice now, is it?

Let’s say you’ve got a buddy named Greg. Greg gets into a terrible accident. You, and only you, have what Greg needs to survive, and getting it would require a long and involved operation that neither you nor Greg are guaranteed to survive from.

Question 1) are you morally obligated to save Greg’s life, even if it could cost you your own?

Question 2) Should the state have the power to arrest you and force you to go under the knife against your will for Greg’s sake?

1) No. You're never obligated to save a dying person. You're obligated not to kill a healthy person. You're also not obligated to extraordinarily sacrifice for strangers. You are obligated to make ordinary (expected and foreseeable) sacrifices for your dependents. I talk more about that in this post.

2) No. The state ought not compell you to extraordinarily sacrifice to save a dying person.

Now, question for you.

Let’s say my forces capture a prisoner of war in outer space, an ordinary risk of engaging in interstellar warfare. I knew upon engagement that any POWs brought to me would foreseeably depend on my ship to keep them alive; an expected outcome. Let’s also say my ship is fully automated and takes care of the POW without me having to lift a finger. Letting him draw from my surplus for sustenance is a sacrifice, not to mention his presence is a toll on my ship. Eventually I start to feel unenthused about this dependency, and the nearest habitable planet is 9 months away.

1) Is it ethical for me to withdraw the POW’s connection to my ship’s oxygen supply and eject him into outer space?

2) If I do so, should the intergalactic court of justice have the power to condemn me of a war crime?

[conorreid]

ACAB

The phrase that haunts America. From Seattle to New York, Minneapolis to Houston, it is the call of “All Cops Are Bastards” that is traded back and forth. Countless numbers are introduced to 1312 for the first time; with every swing of the baton and every tear gas canister fired, those numbers swell larger. Now too big to ignore, calls of “ACAB” ring out from sea to shining sea. Pursed on the lips of framers and lawyers alike, it is the call of a force just awakening from its long slumber. Here we will examine neither the material conditions that have brought such a cry to the forefront, nor the various “solutions” pedalled to those conditions. Instead, we will look at what we mean when we declare that All Cops Are Bastards, and perhaps address some of the pearl clutching surrounding the usage of the phrase.

To do so, we will be employing the device of social roles, similarly to what Karl Marx does in Capital, Vol 1. One’s social role is tied to what one is engaged in, but the key is that the roles can be entered and exited—somewhat—at will. Individuals are free to leave and engage in new roles, but the roles themselves remain relatively fixed. That is, I have a role that is not dependent on my individual nature, but my social “choice.” While in that role I complete the actions associated with it, but I am only “forced” to do those things so long as I am inside the context of that role. Leave and switch to another, and I am “free.”

By way of example, Marx offers the roles of the buyer and the seller in a marketplace. The buyer and the seller meet in the marketplace on equal footing, but each has a separate role that includes very specific actions. The social role of the seller is to offer forth a commodity for purchase. The buyer rolls up to the marketplace with money and the intent to purchase such a commodity. They agree on a price, and the transaction is complete. The seller, well, sells, and the buyer buys. Those are their roles, and to vary from the assigned actions of the role means to give it up altogether. After all, a seller is not a seller unless she sells! A seller who, in the course of negotiation, decides not to sell after all, forfeits their role as a seller and becomes merely the holder of a commodity in demand. The role requires the actions associated with that role. Fail to carry out the actions and the role itself is forfeit. Likewise, the roles can be reversed and switched by completing different actions. As Marx writes, “Being a seller and being a buyer are not fixed roles, but constantly attach themselves to different persons in the course of the accumulation of commodities.”1 Similarly, one can be both a buyer and a seller right after one another, or even at the same time—so long as one is negotiating separate transactions simultaneously. The social roles of the buyer and the seller are not fixed but fluid, and can be eschewed at will.

Of course, one can hold other roles outside of just buyer and seller, and can be held simultaneously. Let us take the capitalist, for example. By owning the means of production for some commodity—in this case, let us say a cotton mill—they take on the social role of a capitalist—that is, someone whose primary goal is the expansion of their own capital through the production of surplus value ad infinitum. Indeed, as Marx explains:

Only as a personification of capital is the capitalist respectable... it is not values in use and the enjoyment of them, but exchange-value and its augmentation, that spur him into action. Fanatically bent on making value expand itself, he ruthlessly forces the human race to produce for production’s sake.2

A capitalist’s social role is to expand their own capital. That is, by definition, what a capitalist is compelled to do. But to do so, they also must engage in other social roles. Our capitalist must don the role of the buyer in the marketplace to secure the cotton necessary for the production of yarn in her mill. She also must become a buyer of labour power to run her mill and produce the surplus value that will lead to expanding her capital. Without workers to spin the cotton into yarn, she’ll realize no value and spurn her social role, forfeiting her claim to being a capitalist at all! And finally, she must also become a seller to realize her profits; without selling her yarn she has made nothing at all. Therefore, those who hold the social role of the capitalist must also, by definition, hold the social roles of the buyer and the seller.

Note that the social role of a capitalist is dependent on the expansion of her own capital through the extraction of surplus value from labour. To do otherwise is incompatible with the social role of the capitalist. As Marx explains:

_Apres moi le deluge!_3 is therefore the watchword of every capitalist and of every capitalist nation. Capital therefore takes no account of the health and the length of life of the worker, unless society forces it to do so. Its answer to the outcry about the physical and mental degradation, the premature death, the torture of over-work, is this: Should that pain trouble us, since it increase our pleasure (profit)? But looking at these things as a whole, it is evident that this does not depend on the will, either good or bad, of the individual capitalist. Under free competition, the immanent laws of capitalist production confront the individual capitalist as a coercive force external to him.4

That is, to be a capitalist at all, one must exploit workers for all they’re worth. To not do so is to forfeit one’s social role as a capitalist. One can be a “great” man, with strong morals, but to be a capitalist means to forego those morals in the name of the worldly god of profit. Competition, the coercive force behind the capitalist role, precludes the well being of the workers.

Let us assume, for a moment, that there does indeed exist a “good” capitalist. She pays her workers well—though not the full value of their labour, for indeed that would mean foregoing any profit at all and forfeiting the role of a capitalist—she makes sure that her cotton mill is outfitted with the latest and safest spinning wheels, she only works her staff for eight hours a day with a lunch break in between, they are provided with the best in healthcare, and by democratic process get to choose the Spotify playlist blasted throughout the mill for the day. However, a new cotton mill moves into town and pays their workers far less, drives them day and night to spin cotton into yarn, provides no healthcare, and exclusively plays “Gucci Gang” by Lil Pump on repeat throughout the factory floor. A hellish workplace to be sure, but the reserve army of labour assures that the capitalists will be able to fill their mill with souls desperate for a wage of any kind. This cotton mill will realize far higher profits than the one run by our “good” capitalist, for their margin of surplus is much larger. Pay your workers less and run them for longer, and you’ll be realizing higher profits than someone who pays workers more and only works eight hour days. Less product to sell, and at a lesser profit margin.

Therefore, we find our “good” capitalist at a crossroads. She is being driven out of business by the ruthless Gucci Gang mill next door. She cannot compete, as they can sell their goods for less while realizing more profit, leaving her out in the cold. What is she to do? She can maintain her morals, continuing treating her workers well, and find herself out of business and her workers out on the street in no time at all. Or, she can buckle down, cut her workers’ pay, and work them to the bone to bring back her profits up. Choose the former, and her “good” nature is consistent, but she has foreclosed her ability to be a capitalist. She has renounced the compulsion of the role of a capitalist, as she is seeking the wellbeing of her workers over the expansion of her own capital, and therefore the coercive nature of competition throws her out of that role. Choose the latter, and she is no longer the “good” capitalist, but at least she is still a capitalist. If her morals cannot be overwritten, she simply ceases to be a capitalist at all. The coercive force of competition, the definition of the social role of a capitalist, requires exploitations. It is the lifeblood of that role. To renounce it means to give up that role entirely.

Marx makes this point with a consortium of “twenty-six firms owning extensive potteries” who no longer wanted to employ children as labourers.5 Instead of simply not using children, they lobbied parliament to ban child labour altogether. If their competitors could still use children, it was “impossible” to both stay alive and not use child labour. As Marx explains, “Competition with other capitalists, they said, did not allow them to limit the hours worked by children voluntarily.”6 As if the bounds of capital are the bounds of the possible! A glimpse into 19th century capitalist realism. Regardless, the logic of the capitalist role dictates that one must exploit all they can, regardless of personal opinion. The role itself forces you to do so—if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the fire. Hence, ACAB; by definition, all capitalists are bastards.

But what about cops? Like capitalists, cops are a social role. But what is that role? What are the coercive forces pressing down upon them? Substantially the self professed role of the police is to “Protect and Serve,” but we must delve a bit more into that sentiment. Their social media accounts would have you believe they serve the public at large, but even a cursory glance at the myriad extrajudicial killings casts doubt on such a claim. Instead, Fredreich Engels—using the notes of Marx on Lewis Morgan’s Ancient Society—asserts in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State that the police exist to serve and protect the state, not the public at large. And as “the modern representative state is the instrument for exploiting wage labour by capital,” protecting and serving the state means protecting and serving the violent rule of capital. “To keep the citizens in check, a police force was needed.”7 And that police force exists only to protect the right of private property from those who would challenge it. Law and order exists to codify some violence as legitimate while vilifying others. Therefore, we call the police standing guard outside a grocery to stop the entrance of a starving man order, while that same man stealing an europe banana is violence and disorder that must be stopped at all costs, lest our world descend into anarchy. The police are authorized to use violence by the state, and they use this violence to perpetuate the violence inherent in property ownership. Hence the reason why police killings of Eric Garner for selling loose cigarettes and George Flyod for using an alleged counterfeit twenty dollar bill are expected and habitual, while crimes like Elon Musk breaking social distancing and condemning his workers to a short life by reopening his Tesla factory in California, or Wells Fargo committing massive fraud by opening up thousands upon thousands of new credit cards for unaware customers to juke their own numbers, remain entirely unpoliced. The former “threaten” the property owning class with “disorder,” while the latter are merely part of the game. It is perhaps instructive to think of the police as a force of knights let loose upon the land by a monarch who wishes to remind his subjects to not get too uppity. The social role of the police requires them to protect one form of violence by using violence against all challengers.

So much for the theory. But what about the facts on the ground? A look at the history of policing in the United States seems to back up the idea that the police exist to uphold order and protect the status quo than to serve the public good. Below the Mason-Dixon live, the police grew out of community slave patrols. Quite literally, the role of the police in the South was to prevent property from running away and freeing themselves, upholding the “order” of violent slavery and stopping the “violence” of runaways. In the North, “police forces emerged as a response to disorder” primarily caused by massive labour unrest.8 Groups like the Pinkertons were initially hired by capitalists to break strikes and protect factories from rioting workers. In due time, they evolved into publicly funded police forces whose broad mandate was to uphold the rule of capital by any means possible.

Therefore, the social role of the police is to protect the rule of law and order from the public. A “good” cop ceases to be a cop the moment he decides the right of a starving man to live is greater than the right of a capitalist to property. By definition a cop must protect property over people, and to do otherwise is to break the role of the police. Hence, the role of the police is irredeemable. Reform cannot change the role that all cops must fulfill; they will always be against the public good, as they will always defend the state and order against the public they supposedly serve. Perhaps they can exert their monopoly of violence more “cleaning” against a starving man. You can ban tear gas, provide all the sensitivity training you’d like, but the cop will never not beat the starving man trying to eat, for that is what they are paid to do. Reform is a dead end. The only road is abolition. ACAB is not merely a slogan, it is the truth. The role of the police means they must be abolished, for to change their role is to destroy their very reason for existing.

Karl Marx, Capital Volume 1, 206 ↩︎

Karl Marx, Capital Volume 1, 739 ↩︎

Literally, “After me, the flood!” Traditionally attributed to Madame de Pompadour, the lover of Louis XV, after the Battle of Rossbach turned the tide against the French in the Seven Years War on the continent. In this usage, it means something to the effect of “who gives a damn what happens, so long as it’s after I’ve got mine!” ↩︎

Karl Marx, Capital Volume 1, 381 ↩︎

Karl Marx, Capital Volume 1, 381 ↩︎

Karl Marx, Capital Volume 1, 381 ↩︎

Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, 92-93 ↩︎

Gary Potter, The History of Policing in the United States, 3 ↩︎

[arcelian]

Tales of the Abyss Hogwarts Houses

Here's something I've been working on for... almost two years apparently??  Some friends and I started an Abyss Harry Potter AU a while back, and sortinghatchats was brought up, and I ended up trying to sort all the main characters using their system.  So here it finally is!

Obvious disclaimer: while I've had feedback from said friends while making this it's still ultimately subjective; I've written explanations for all the main chars (protags and villains) but if you disagree with any of these that's okay! (and you should tell me because I will be interested!!)  There's also some bonus major npcs at the end that I didn't write explanations for bc they're.... bonus....

Also disclaimer: this uses sortinghatchats' two-house sorting system, so if you've never heard of it before you might want to look at this post first so you don't get confused by my references to primaries and secondaries and other stuff!

Full thing under the cut bc Long.

Heroes

Luke: Hufflepuff/Gryffindor

Luke is definitely Hufflepuff primary, even before his character development; he was so isolated that he didn’t really have much understanding of or attachment to anyone outside of the manor, but even then he was quick to empathize with others.  Even pre-development he shows concern for others’ wellbeing, shown most explicitly with Ion and with his reluctance to kill.  Most of his role models as a child are very discriminatory, so he tends towards that at first, but by the endgame he’s trying to save everyone, up to and including his enemies who are actively trying to kill him.

For secondary, he’s the most ridiculously stubborn Gryffindor I’ve ever seen, to the point that the rest of the party yelling at him about how he’s making incredibly stupid, impulsive decisions is a fairly regular occurrence, even post-development.  He almost has to be physically dragged out of Sheridan during the disaster, he chases Spinoza halfway across the world to prove a point to Asch, etc.

Tear: Gryffindor/Gryffindor

Tear is the sort of person who prioritizes justice and morality above anything else.  She is kind and apologetic to Luke when they first meet, then treats him coldly when she starts seeing him as rude and selfish, then is the first person to support his efforts to become a better person.  She’s also willing to turn against anyone, even her own family or the Order of Lorelei itself, if she feels their actions are unjust, and will do whatever it takes to correct that injustice.  She is capable of performing Slytherin when necessary, but she feels most at home in Gryffindor.

Guy: Slytherin/Hufflepuff (models/adopts Hufflepuff primary & Slytherin secondary)

Guy’s a bit hard to get a handle on at first, but if you look close he’s actually Slytherin primary; he’s just very warm and friendly in his regular interactions.  However, there’s really only a few people he’s very attached to; before and during the beginning of the game, that includes his family, but that expands to include Luke, and the rest of the core party to a lesser extent.  He also adopts Luke’s Hufflepuff mindset as a moral code for the part of the world he’s not emotionally invested in, which is what causes the confusion.

He is Hufflepuff secondary though, perfectly happy to spend years on his revenge plan, or sit in Aramis Spring for hours, or devote himself to helping Luke grow.  He can model Slytherin as a secondary as well, but in the end his more favoured tactic is calm, stubborn persistence.

Natalia: Gryffindor/Gryffindor (models Hufflepuff primary)

Natalia has Hufflepuff leanings as well, but ultimately she’s actually Gryffindor.  She values her people, yes, but that’s because she believes that it’s her duty as a princess, so she models Hufflepuff.  However, in the end, she puts that duty above all else, as she does when she chooses to fight Largo for the sake of her people, for example.  She does slip towards burning for a short time during the heritage plot, but manages to pull herself back up.  By the time of the peace conference, she’s returned to doing what Gryff/Gryffs do best: seeing injustice and marching straight in to right it.

Jade: Slytherin/Ravenclaw (models Ravenclaw primary)

Jade is almost always the smartest person in the room, and he takes pleasure in knowing that (and lording it over everyone else).  He’s also incredibly logical and methodical, trying to study a situation from every angle before deciding on a course of action - he just happens to have enough experience to do this incredibly quickly.  Overall Jade is a good example of a hypercompetent Ravenclaw secondary - his ability to draw on an extensive knowledge base is what makes him such an effective threat.

Despite that, when push comes to shove he really wants to protect his people over all else, and when he’s sufficiently stressed he begins to fall back on this instinct, which is why he’s a Slytherin primary with a Ravenclaw model, and not a Ravenclaw ignoring his gut feelings to do what’s logical to him.  For example, his pre-Rem conversation: “I would ask you to die, yes. If I were an Emperor, with a country to consider.  But as your friend, I feel compelled to stop you.”  Jade’s desire to follow his Ravenclaw-model idea of what is correct is ultimately secondary to his Slytherin instinct to protect his own.

This is also shown during his backstory: Nebilim was part of his inner circle, and her death and Jade’s failure at properly replicating her causes him to begin to Petrify.  His Ravenclaw model was built primarily as a way of coping with this loss and preventing it from happening again.

Interestingly enough, by the end of the game Jade’s added Luke to his inner circle, to the point of adopting some of Luke’s Hufflepuff primary tendencies, shown with his plans to resume his fomicry studies for the sake of the remaining replicas.

Anise: Slytherin/Slytherin

Anise is incredibly Slytherin!  Her major motivation is protecting Ion and her parents, and she will do anything to further that goal, including lying, spying, and sucking up to every rich person she meets.  Most of Anise’s struggles during the game are a result of her guilt over being forced to act against her inner circle (her parents, Ion, and eventually the rest of the party).  This comes to a head during her traitor subplot, when she’s forced to choose between her parents and Ion, shows off her Slytherin secondary with her plan to save both, and is heartbroken when her attempts ultimately fail.

Asch: Burned Slytherin/Gryffindor

Asch started off as a Slytherin primary, with his family, Natalia, and Van among his inner circle, but was Burned after the kidnapping incident and stopped trusting anyone.  During the events of the game, the group, especially Natalia, started to pull him out of the burned state, but he wasn’t able to do so entirely before the endgame.

On the other hand, Asch is, like Luke, a Gryffindor secondary.  He’s stubborn and hardheaded, refusing to follow any path but his own, especially when Luke is involved.  He’s also surprisingly blunt and honest, choosing to explain things to Luke at the beginning of the second act despite his personal feelings towards him.  Unfortunately, the combination of this secondary and his burnt Primary lead him to ignore the party’s suggestions and offers to help, which ultimately lead to his downfall.

Villains

Van: Burned Gryffindor/Hufflepuff

Van is a good example of a villainous Gryffindor.  When he was young he was likely an idealist, believing in the Score, or at least his family’s duty as descendants of Yulia - but when Hod was destroyed, he lost his faith in those duties and Burned his primary.  He chose to destroy the Score that betrayed him, and by extension the world that allowed it to exist, and refuses to be swayed by any outside arguments because he is no longer capable of seeing any other solution.  And he chooses to sacrifice anything that could get in the way of his goal, even his sister or the lord he was sworn to protect.

To reach that goal, Van spends years working his way up to the position of Commandant in the Order, charming and manipulating everyone around him, and just generally being a very effective Hufflepuff secondary.  Van’s most dangerous attribute is his relentlessness, with his ability to gain people’s trust as a close second.  Using it, he manages to draw the God-Generals and Mohs to his side, and several others including Luke only oppose him once they’re far enough from him to break free from his influence.

Interestingly enough, Van’s sorting is an inversion of Luke’s, with his Gryff/Puff opposing Luke’s Puff/Gryff.

Legretta: Burned Slytherin/Ravenclaw

Legretta is another Burned Slytherin primary, with her brother’s death and her confrontation with Van as the catalyst for her primary burning.  By the time the game happens she’s stopped being able to trust her heart, because she’s no longer sure whether her feelings are actually hers or if they’re being caused by the Score.  In the meantime, she’s adopted a rather Ravenclaw-like mindset in order to cope with her loss of trust: her reason for destroying the Score is to find out whether or not it’s manipulating her feelings.  The Score is the greatest threat to both her and her loved ones, and until she can confirm that she’s safe from it she refuses to let herself care about anyone.

She is, however, a true Ravenclaw in her secondary, with her gambit to follow Van to restore her primary showing that off best.  She is careful and methodical, following the plan to the best of her abilities, thorough in everything she does.  This even shows in the flashback to her assassination attempt, as she apparently did enough research beforehand into the Closed Score and Van’s actions to know that her brother’s death was foretold there.

Dist: Slytherin/Gryffindor

As a Slytherin primary, Dist is an extreme example of the ‘selfish ambition’ Slytherin stereotype.  His ultimate goal is to win back Jade’s approval, to make Jade happy; it’s the driving force behind all his actions.  Unfortunately for him, he fundamentally misunderstands who Jade is and what he wants, which is why he’s so unsuccessful in reaching that goal, but that is his goal regardless.

Dist also tries to emulate Jade’s Ravenclaw secondary, playing the part of the scheming mad scientist, but unfortunately for him he’s actually a Gryffindor secondary.  During most of his interactions with the party, he ends up resorting to stubborn tenaciousness to try and get what he wants.  He brags and taunts, throws robots around liberally, and absolutely refuses to consider any other options, no matter how many times Jade brushes him off.

Largo: Burned Gryffindor/Gryffindor

Like Natalia, Largo is both Gryffindor primary and secondary, but unlike her, his primary is Burned, caused by the loss of his wife and child.  He could no longer believe the Score was just, and he couldn’t trust his king to do what he believes is right.  Largo doesn’t follow Van because he believes Van’s plan is any better than the Score, though; it’s because he can no longer see a path that’s truly ‘right,’ so he latched onto Van’s convictions in an attempt to find stability.  He became the muscle of Van’s faction, preferring to use brute force and implacability over his allies’ less straightforward methods.

However, Largo still holds onto the shreds of his Gryffindor ideals.  He may not know for himself what is right, but he still places value on the idea of justice, and respects anyone who can wholeheartedly believe in something, even if he can’t agree with it.  It’s what convinced him to side with Van, but it also shows in his conversations around his final battle, as he praises Luke, Natalia, and the rest of the party for standing up for their own beliefs.

Sync: Burned Slytherin/Slytherin

Sync is a Burned Slytherin at its most extreme, caring for nothing and nobody, including himself.  Van comes the closest to being part of Sync’s circle, but in the end Sync follows him more because of their shared goal than out of any significant emotional attachment.  Sync’s Slytherin primary is also what makes it easy for him to follow Van’s plans - he has no loyalty or attachment to the world in general, and thus feels no guilt over destroying it.

Sync’s secondary is also Slytherin, as his preferred method is manipulating and toying with others instead of meeting them straight on.  He uses the curse slot he put on Guy to attack the party several times, sneaks onto the Tartarus during the planet core mission to wreak havoc, and after Ion’s death he uses their similar appearance to mess with Anise.

Arietta: Hufflepuff/Gryffindor

Arrietta as a Hufflepuff primary sounds odd at first, but that’s because her Puff loyalty is very different from the stereotype.  Like most Puffs, she cares about people - but Arietta’s definition of ‘people’ is almost exclusively her monster family and friends.  With a few exceptions, she doesn’t seem to see humans as worthy of her time or respect; it’s arguable that she doesn’t even perceive herself as ‘human,’ identifying with her monsters more.  Ion, of course, is the rare human exception, with the other God-Generals counting only through Van’s connection with Ion.  However, the rest of humanity is beneath her notice, and she treats the party with active malice.  They killed her family, after all - to Arietta it’s the humans that are the real monsters.

She also shows a Gryffindor-secondary tendency to run into things headfirst, trusting her gut to do what seems right in the moment instead of doing any complicated planning.  Arrietta fights the party mainly because of her grudge over her liger mother’s death, with Van’s plans being secondary.  She also gives the party information on a whim when Ion is threatened, and just as impulsively challenges Anise to a duel after Ion’s death.

Mohs: Hufflepuff/Slytherin

Mohs is the type of Hufflepuff that prioritizes loyalty to a community or group over loyalty to the people in it.  For him, his priority is the Order of Lorelei, and all its religious ideals and traditions - he is the only major faction leader who is unable to let go of the Score when everyone else chooses to abandon it, and he resorts to increasingly desperate measures to cling to his duty.  The Score is an intrinsic part of his identity, and he just can’t cope with the knowledge that it might not be the perfect promise he believed it was.  He spends the second half of the game trying desperately not to Burn, because if the Score is destroyed, his entire identity will go with it.

Meanwhile, his tendency to use whatever means possible - even if it’s underhanded or deceitful - to ensure the Score is carried out proves his Slytherin secondary.  Even beyond his following the Order’s rules of controlling information access for the Score’s sake, he manipulates King Ingobert to try and get rid of Luke, and even goes as far as allying with the God-Generals when he thinks it’ll help him succeed.

Other

Ion - Hufflepuff/Slytherin

Mieu - Slytherin/Hufflepuff

Peony - Hufflepuff/Slytherin

Ingobert - Hufflepuff/Ravenclaw

Duke Fabre - Gryffindor/Hufflepuff

Ginji & Noelle - Hufflepuff/Ravenclaw

Nephry - Gryffindor/Hufflepuff

Cecille - Slytherin/Hufflepuff

Frings - Gryffindor/Gryffindor

(also shoutout to jeredu lyra slip rei for Making Hogwarts AU and thus This Post Happen)

[elajyoti-blog]

IVF Centres in Indore | IVF Treatment | Surrogacy Treatment

IVF Center in Indore, Trust is a to a great degree indispensable part between two individuals. It remains constant particularly in a connection between a specialist and a patient. A patient places his/her understood confidence in a specialist, and it is the ethical obligation of a specialist to respect this confidence. At the point when the confidence is respected commonly, it guarantees smooth procedure of the treatment.

IVF is a specialty subject about which just a handful of average folks have sufficient learning. The imminent patients more often than not get their work done and endeavor to get as much information about IVF as they can through the Internet and different means previously going to the IVF master. In spite of having gained a little information, there is a component of anxiety and the master must deliver these questions to put any wariness to rest.

A specialist needs to understand that IVF isn't only a mind boggling subject, yet in addition somewhat distressing for the individuals who are planning to attempt this procedure. There are different questions and speculations in their minds which an adroit and prepared master must explain with clearness. Be that as it may, there is one precautionary measure which must be seen by the specialists. The greater part of them tend to over-guarantee and discuss their success stories with energy. Be that as it may, they should be similarly vocal about the odds of disappointments so as not to develop false expectations.

The IVF master must be candid and forthright while addressing the questions and inquiries of patients. He should clarify every one of the methods and strategies, while suggesting the best accessible alternatives according to the circumstance or state of the patient get productive outcomes. However, he/she should clear tell the traps and obstructions. The bigger picture must not be avoided patients for insignificant guardian benefits. Building of false expectations and over the top guarantees may inspire patients for now yet when the guarantees are not satisfied, it prompts disdain and fierceness.

IVF is a delicate theme and a ton of feelings of patients are connected to it. The authorities would do well to understand this and speak with patients with the affectability and honesty the subject commands.

IVF Indore gives a sensibly valued IVF Treatment and Test Tube Baby treatment to achieving pregnancy.

In Vitro Fertilization is a helped regenerative innovation (ART) generally alluded to as IVF. IVF is the procedure of fertilization by extracting eggs, retrieving a sperm test, and then physically combining an egg and sperm in a research facility dish. The embryo(s) is then exchanged to the uterus. Different types of ART include gamete intrafallopian exchange (GIFT) and zygote intrafallopian exchange (ZIFT).

Get an Amazing Surrogacy Treatment Options for Women In confided in Surrogacy Center in Indore. Contact us for the solid and best Surrogacy clinic in Indore at a reasonable cost. We offer extensive Surrogacy and in vitro fertilization for no matter how you look at it through our group of specialists who are well-proficient in the field of IVF and Surrogacy. We have 100% protected, moral and compelling techniques with profoundly gifted fertility specialists to encourage you. Find confided in Surrogacy clinic in Indore close you. We deal with fertility treatment plan which is tweaked to suit your requirements and wellbeing. Get diverse Fertility treatment choices accessible to enable you to get pregnant by choosing Surrogacy Center in Indore.

Total Fertility Solutions is extraordinary compared to other fertility clinics in India providing diverse sorts of solutions to different kinds of infertility issues. Both the Doctors, Dr. Shivani Joshi and Dr. Sankelp Joshi on board, are enthusiastic about individuals and couples to construct their excellent families. With an ordeal of 8 years in the field of infertility, we have successfully been a piece of 1000 IVF Cycles, in excess of 700 Ovum Pick Ups and around 500 Embryo Transfers. Because of her energy in the field and long periods of professional hands-on involvement with the innovation, Dr Shivani Joshi is currently gifted in setting up new IVF Units and has additionally been training and handholding different gynecologists.

Disha Fertility and Surgical Center was set up in October 1998, in Saket Nagar, Indore to give an extensive variety of infertility treatments in a casual, well disposed and agreeable condition. The doctor's facility gives a wide assortment of infertility treatments like IVF.IUI, Surrogacy, Female fertility conservation, Donor egg IVF, Embryo gift, Human sperm banking and so forth. The healing center in-houses a very much prepared research center and flaunts a cutting edge infrastructure. The healing facility is visited by Dr. Asha Baxi. You can get contact points of interest of Disha Fertility and Surgical Center on www.elawoman.com

Extra dangers of IVF include the following:

Egg recovery conveys dangers of bleeding, infection, and harm to the inside or bladder.

The possibility of a products pregnancy is increased with the utilization of fertility treatment. There are extra dangers and concerns identified with products during pregnancy including the increased danger of unexpected labor and low birth weight.

In spite of the fact that the rates of premature delivery are like unassisted origination, the hazard increases with maternal age.

The Mayo Clinic reports that the danger of ectopic pregnancy with IVF are 2-5%. An ectopic pregnancy is the point at which a prepared egg embeds anyplace outside the uterus and isn't practical.

Helped conceptive innovation (ART) involves a critical physical, financial, and passionate duty with respect to a couple. Mental pressure and passionate issues are normal, particularly if in vitro fertilization (IVF) is unsuccessful.

IVF is costly, and numerous insurance designs don't give scope to fertility treatment. The cost for a single IVF cycle can extend from in any event $12,000-$17,000.

How successful is in vitro fertilization?

The success rate of IVF clinics relies upon various elements including regenerative history, maternal age, the reason for infertility, and way of life factors. It is additionally essential to understand that pregnancy rates are not the same as live birth rates.

In the United States, the live birth rate for each IVF cycle began is roughly:

41-43% for ladies under age 35

33-36% for ladies ages 35 to 37

23-27% for ladies ages 38 to 40

13-18% for ladies ages more than 40

Imagine a scenario where I don't create sound eggs or my husband is sterile.

You may utilize donor eggs, sperm, or incipient organisms. Be that as it may, make a point to converse with an advisor experienced with donor issues. You will need to be informed about different legitimate issues identified with gamete gift including the lawful privileges of the donor.

What number of incipient organisms ought to be made or exchanged?

The quantity of incipient organisms exchanged commonly relies upon the quantity of eggs gathered and maternal age. As the rate of implantation diminishes as ladies age, more Eggs might be embedded depending on age to increase the probability of implantation. Notwithstanding, a more noteworthy number of eggs exchanged increases the odds of having a products pregnancy. Make a point to chat with your specialist before the procedure so you both concede to what number of fetuses to embed.

How would I pick an infertility clinic?

There are various things to ask regarding the cost and points of interest of particular focuses and fertility programs. Some proposed questions are accessible online in Selecting Your ART Program.

A few couples need to investigate more conventional or over the counter endeavors previously exploring infertility procedures.

For more information, Call Us :  +91 – 7899912611

Visit Website  : www.elawoman.com  

Contact Form : https://www.elawoman.com/contact

Ela Facebook      

Ela Twitter        

Ela Instagram        

Ela Linkedin       

 Ela  Youtube