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
Because the definition of freedom already has a built-in limit on what we can do, i.e., not impose coercion or constraints on others (except to preserve freedom).
Originally posted by Berzerker
Because the definition of freedom already has a built-in limit on what we can do, i.e., not impose coercion or constraints on others (except to preserve freedom).
Why not interpret this limit as form of coercion?
If David says killing isn´t exercising freedom - doesn´t that mean that there is a coercion not to coerce another person (eg. by killing this person) as part of our freedom?
one interesting thing in this thread is the concept of hate. I knew something positive would come of this thread.
Hate almost deserves its own thread. I'm afraid to write anything for fear of not being politically correct .
I don't believe these following statements, these are just random thoughts I have been contemplating.
Why is it wrong to hate someone or some race? Why is it OK to hate a group of people who hate a race or creed? Should crimes based on hate be more punishable than crimes not based on hate? How can the goverment mandate what a person thinks? I know the anser to this of course- because they need to protect the rights of the victim of the hate.
There are a lot of murky issues about hate. I'm not exactly sure what is morally correct. If someone wants to create another thread dealing specifically with this subject go ahead. Don't want to threadjack my own thread .
Why not interpret this limit as form of coercion? If David says killing isn´t exercising freedom - doesn´t that mean that there is a coercion not to coerce another person (eg. by killing this person) as part of our freedom?
The coercion/force we use in self-defense isn't being used to suppress the attacker's freedom since they lack the freedom to attack in the first place. If I try to impose coercion or constraints upon you, my freedom is not violated by your effort to resist or runaway. If you're asking if coercion or force is, or can be, used to preserve freedom, sure...
no it should not be illegal. Then we would have to arrest all the nazis and put them in prison. we would end up with so many of them that we would have to build new prisons just for them. I know! we could call these prisons concentration camps!
Making being a nazi illegal would be doing the same thing to them that Hitlers nazi party did to the Gypsies and other minority groups in Europe.
Nazi type parties shouldn't be banned but they should also not be surprised when the authorities decide to put them under some sort of surveillance.
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams (Influential author)
Being illegal and being put in prison are two different things. But for a start, they shouldn't be allowed to teach our children or to be police officers. Prove yourself: Do you want a communist to be the teacher of your children? If your answer is no, neither should it be a nazi.
But there is a problem, if you want to remain based on law and constitution. How do you prove, that one is a nazi? What are the criteria? To be the member of a right wing extremist party? To have participated in meetings or demonstrations? To have openly spouted hatred towards minorities or foreigners? Or what? With other words, where does one end to be a normal citizen and begin to be an outlaw, who needs to be restricted and observed?
But for a start, they shouldn't be allowed to teach our children or to be police officers.
and they dont want Jewish people teaching thier kids or policing thier neigborhoods, but they dont get a choice. what you suggest is entirely unreasonable. ((though I do agree))
off the topic: I had a teacher last year who is a socialist, he was one of the best teachers Ive had. but then again thats not a communist is it?
Being illegal and being put in prison are two different things
okay so I change the name of my party to The Grand Masturbaters. I still follow nazi ideals, but hey! now you cant prove it.
Originally posted by Space05us
and they dont want Jewish people teaching thier kids or policing thier neigborhoods, but they dont get a choice. what you suggest is entirely unreasonable. ((though I do agree))
What have followers of a religion ( i.e. a peaceful ideology) have in common with people spouting hatred towards minorities and foreigners and having killed and injured so many people (and continue to do it)?
okay so I change the name of my party to The Grand Masturbaters. I still follow nazi ideals, but hey! now you cant prove it.
That's the whole problem, see the 2nd part of my post.
What have followers of a religion ( i.e. a peaceful ideology) have in common with people spouting hatred towards minorities and foreigners and having killed and injured so many people (and continue to do it)?
Thats not how nazis see them. a nazi would see a Jew and see an evil person, just as a Jew would see a nazi and see an evil person. Your personal views have nothing to do with it.
Well, ok, granted, I didn't entirely understand your complaint. Curses, but I have to work and can only risk to pay 1% attention to Poly, and my boss would kill me even for that measly percent.
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Being illegal and being put in prison are two different things. But for a start, they shouldn't be allowed to teach our children or to be police officers. Prove yourself: Do you want a communist to be the teacher of your children? If your answer is no, neither should it be a nazi.
But there is a problem, if you want to remain based on law and constitution. How do you prove, that one is a nazi? What are the criteria? To be the member of a right wing extremist party? To have participated in meetings or demonstrations? To have openly spouted hatred towards minorities or foreigners? Or what? With other words, where does one end to be a normal citizen and begin to be an outlaw, who needs to be restricted and observed?
AFAIK having an illegal party is (in Germany) more related to your first paragraph - eg. you can´t get public jobs as a member of such a party, the party cannot do anything in public (can´t participate in elections, can´t make demos etc.). It doesn´t mean that all the members end up in jail as political prisoners. The main purpose to declare a party illegal is to make sure that this party can´t participate in the political process anymore, it is not the goal to criminalize every individual member.
The only party declared illegal after WWII in (Western) Germany under German authority was a Communist party, the KPD (The Nazi NSDAP was declared criminal by the allies in the Nuremberg trials). I´d say this had more to do with the cold-war anti-communist hysteria of the 50ies than with a real threat from that party. The KPD was declared illegal 1956, but it was reestablished legally as DKP in 1968. Today they wouldn´t even be in danger to be declared illegal I think (but they disolved themselves in 1990)
Comment