The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Which Poly poster would you most regret getting in an argument with?
what are the benefits of doing it all i hear about are people griping about their marriages...
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln
You'll meet someone one day and none of this will matter
Okay
I'll take your word for it
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln
Originally posted by Lincoln
I would like to see a debate between Etheired and Berzeker. Of course it would never end and Apolyton would have to buy another server before it was over. But anyway I thnk that Etheired was worse. He would even parse whole sentences into convinient phrases in order to lose the context and confuse the issue. Once I took one of his posts and parsed it into one or two words each with an irrelevant comment after each one to see how he liked it but he answered each one with the world's longest post.
Ethelred, I almost forgot about him. He was a Beserker before there was a Beserker. I agree that he probably was even a little worse. Beserker has emotions such as anger and at least shows some signs of humanity. Ethelred just seemed like some sort of computer.
But I agree, Ethelred vs. Beserker, that would be a hell of a thing. I would even pay money to see that.
Well it was followed by a lot of argument in the previous debate. Arguments which you either ignored or wilfully misunderstood.
I repeatedly explained why mugging people is not a right under libertarianism and you neither quoted any libertarian who believed it was a right or explained why using threats of violence are not coercive.
Rule 1 in philosophy is "don't take definitions of philosophical concepts from dictionaries, which aren't written to solve philosophical problems."
Translation: Let Agathon make up the rules once he discovers the absurdity of his arguments. Explain why the definitions of coercion and freedom change once we enter the mystical realm of "philosophy".
I'd quite happily go with a dictionary definition actually because it would support my case rather than yours (given that Libertarians have queer ideas about coercion while normal people don't).
There you go again with your unsupported assertions about what libertarians think. Okay, since you'll accept the dictionary's definition of coercion, explain why a mugger threatening someone with violence does not fit the definition of coercion.
This is a deliberate and fraudulent misrepresentation.
Collective action problems are practical problems for Libertarian systems (esp for Randian systems). That's different from the inconsistency argument which is that commitment to liberty often requires us to violate it (something which pure libertarian systems don't allow).
Geez, can you translate that into an example? You said "prisoner's dilemmas" showed libertarianism is contradictory, so go ahead and provide one. The last time we went thru this you kept offering your PD's and I kept shooting them down and you ignored my rebuttals and went on to your next PD. Better yet, just start a thread with your proposition AND proof so all the libs here can address your concern. I promise to treat you with respect as long as you don't start another insult war like the last time.
In fact, if you had followed that argument you would have seen that Lloyd put up a reasonable defence and managed to save his version from inconsistency.
I don't even know Lloyd.
Unfortunately the price of doing that was reducing it to implausibility by making it basically religious morality without God. Kudos to him for arguing fairly though.
I ask for proof and I get references to God only knows who and what.
There's no inconsistency in this position. If there is a problem with sexual harassment in a gym that can be good reason for women only gyms. Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for golf clubs. That's different from discriminating for racist or sexist reasons, which I have a problem with.
"Sexist" is how you continually described Augusta's policy and not one rational reason we offered could get you to admit there were non-sexist reasons for banning women. If some men harass women in gyms, that's grounds for banning those men, true? But no, you say that because "men are pigs", all men can be banned. So, since women on average are slower golfers, Augusta can use a generalisation to ban all women.
If you had followed the way the argument context developed, instead of dredging up old posts from different contexts, you wouldn't have been so confused.
Where did I dredge up an old post and take it out of context? In the Augusta thread I responded only to your arguments for your proposition, not old threads and unrelated posts.
And before you come up with some spurious objection:
The position that women only gyms or men only golf clubs are permissible is an hypothetical imperative - that means it depends on the reason for it being a good reason.
But you want to be the one to decide which reasons are good or bad, not the people who have to live with your decisions. If women are allowed to be members at Augusta, you won't be the one spending 2 extra hours on the golf course stuck behind a train of elderly women hacking up the course.
Both don't have to be consistent with each other depending on how the contingent facts turn out. Arguments based on fact (like Ming was offering) are going to be useful in this sort of debate.
Hmm...you said I was sucking up to the mods for mentioning your Augusta thread and now you applaud Ming? Are you sucking up now or applying a different standard?
The position that discriminating for racist reasons is wrong is a categorical imperative (i.e. it's always wrong - and don't confuse this with "the" categorical imperative). No amount of physical facts is sufficient to argue with this claim - it has to be argued in terms of moral principles. Physical facts can only come in at the level of application, rather than justification.
Why is it racist for Augusta to ban women? Furthermore, while I agree racism is immoral, I also believe racism doesn't warrant the reaction you advocate - violence. Btw, even Jesse Jackson acknowledged feeling relief when he discovers the group of men walking behind him on a street are white. Is that "racist"?
Your inability to understand this elementary point of logic is at the root of your problems.
Can you quote me saying racism is moral? If not, what does all that have to do with me?
Now stop confusing the modalities of these statements and you might come up with a useful objection.
You haven't even shown I am "confusing" these "modalities".
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
I wasn't aware that we were to site reasons why I just thought we should give the name........how did this happen?
Welcome to earth, my name is Tia and I'll be your tour guide for this trip.
Succulent and Bejeweled Mother Goddess, who is always moisturised yet never greasy, always patient yet never suffers fools~Starchild
Dragons? Yup- big flying lizards with an attitude. ~ Laz
You are forgiven because you are FABULOUS ~ Imran
Beserker has emotions such as anger and at least shows some signs of humanity.
Uh oh, where did I go wrong. Btw, I only get angry on rare occasions when people start in with the insults. I try to avoid insulting people as long as they do the same. I held my temper in the lottery debate quite well when GP practically used an insult to start or end every response.
But I agree, Ethelred vs. Beserker, that would be a hell of a thing. I would even pay money to see that.
Originally posted by Tiamat
I wasn't aware that we were to site reasons why I just thought we should give the name........how did this happen?
Yeah... I thought this was a thread to list people, and give reasons why, without ATTACKING or insulting the person... and to not use this thread to continue arguments from other threads...
So folks... let's get back to the purpose of this thread without having to read all the old arguments
**stamps foot like a petulant child** Oh Mingypooooo you take all the fun out of everything You mean I can't go back into the archives and stir up some ****e all over again?!? And I was sOOOOOOOOoooooo looking forward to bringing up the past......oh poo
Welcome to earth, my name is Tia and I'll be your tour guide for this trip.
Succulent and Bejeweled Mother Goddess, who is always moisturised yet never greasy, always patient yet never suffers fools~Starchild
Dragons? Yup- big flying lizards with an attitude. ~ Laz
You are forgiven because you are FABULOUS ~ Imran
What's the deal with you and poo Tiamat are you into using the strap on?
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln
ACK!
Tweet
Comment