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
Originally posted by MikeH
AA's racist but so is society. End racism in society then we won't need AA.
So two wrongs make a right? I agree that there is racism in society. But using an essentially racist policy to remedy that sad fact is both wrong and hypocritical.
"Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us." --MLK Jr.
It shouldn't be about race, it should be about giving opportunities to those, of whatever colour, who would otherwise not have them.
Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy. We've got both kinds
As soon as our African-American President tells all the Latino Ivy League university presidents it's okay to drop it.
But then wouldn't Joe Whiteman need AA? Mr. Fun, what is your rational for saying AA isn't racist? AA uses race to determine acceptable percentages of minorities in an environment. Wouldn't you say that when race is used as a factor to determine an end result that the process is racist? Racial profiling works in much the same way. I'm not saying that anyone that supports AA is racist; I'm saying AA is racist by definition.
Yeah -- eliminating AA will magically create true equality, AND eliminate racism.
It will end the inequality based on race institutionally. If people want to be racist, thats their (unfortunate) choice. Besides. I don't even believe in race. Saying that two people are different based on skin color is totally arbitrary: they could have classified it based on eye or hair color.
DF -
True, and if I had my way, I would not be sending tax dollars to support it. Now, since I am forced to do so, I'm certainly going to find some way to get value for my money. Nothing immoral there, as long as I don't actually support having the institution. I'd vote against it in a second.
So if you were unemployed, why wouldnt you accept the dole? I mean, its your tax dollars at work, you minus well get the full value out of it.
"Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito Mussolini
Originally posted by MrFun
Well, you guys seem to lack reasoning by stooping to calling everyone racist who disagrees with you on this issue.
I don't think I'm the one who's demonstrating a lack of reasoning ability here. You have failed to give even one reason why making Race THE deciding factor in any decision isn't racist and now you are running away.
I think it's clear that even MrFun knows AA is racist and can't claim other wise.
So there's no point in my continuing to participate in this discussion.
Certainly. But when money is being taken from me, I have every moral right to get it back from the government any way I can.
So, since the government is doing something immoral, it means that you are allowed to take advantage of something you consider immoral?
Two wrongs make a right to you?
You can justify it all you want, but you are being totally inconsistant and hypocritical. Saying you think it is immoral to fund public education, but you are benefiting from it because you've already paid for the immoral act, so why not?
If you were really consistent, you'd refuse to recieve public education because of the immorality of the entire system... but that would require that you, heaven forbid, actually suffer some hardship in your life .
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
So if you were unemployed, why wouldnt you accept the dole? I mean, its your tax dollars at work, you minus well get the full value out of it.
Correct. Forced social welfare is absolutely immoral. That is why I strongly oppose it, and will vote against it at any and every opportunity. However, given the reality of the situation, I see no reason not to take back my money any and every chance I get (up to the amount I paid and/or am likely to pay in, naturally).
However, I would still have issues of taking welfare money - that is, I would have less of a sense of impending doom about unemployment. I would be encouraged to be lazy, and not look for a job. Hopefully I would decide, for entirely different reasons, not to take back my money in this situation.
Imran,
So, since the government is doing something immoral, it means that you are allowed to take advantage of something you consider immoral?
I'm not "taking advantage" of anything. I'm simply taking back what is mine. I would vote against public education, public health care, Social Security, etc., in a SECOND. I don't support any of these programs. However, when people are intent on stealing money from me, I'm going to try to get my money back. If someone robs my house, for example, is it immoral for me to rob HIS house in order to get my stuff back? Certainly not! Intentionally harming other people is immoral, but does this make it immoral to defend yourself? Not at all. You don't support the initial theft or assault, and think both should be illegal, however, once either one happens to you, it is not immoral for you to defend yourself, and recover your property.
Same thing with taxes for social welfare, and the like. The poor and the oldies - at least the majority of them - have ****ed me out of several thousands dollars so far, and will **** me out of thousands more in the future. Any chance I have to take my money back from these ****ers, I'll take.
If you were really consistent, you'd refuse to recieve public education because of the immorality of the entire system...
And if you REALLY believed that harming others was wrong, you wouldn't defend yourself from an attack. If you REALLY believed that theft was wrong, you wouldn't take your property back at the first opportunity.
And if you REALLY believed that harming others was wrong, you wouldn't defend yourself from an attack.
If you REALLY believed that theft was wrong, you wouldn't take your property back at the first opportunity.
One can retrieve property without having to steal the property, just as one can defend yourself without causing permanent injury.
So your analogy works, to make the exact opposite point you hoped for.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
One can retrieve property without having to steal the property
Possibly. But would breaking into the thief's house to retrieve your stuff, or causing permanent injury to defend yourself, actually be WRONG? Of course it wouldn't.
But quite frankly, I don't want to hear lectures from a pacifist about how one can defend oneself without seriously harming another. This is, in many cases, utter bull****.
Tweet
Comment