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 Park Avenue
"to achieve this they want to ban '10 quid, all you can drink' style offers and raise the price of drinks across the board. "
They could never achieve that through taxation, so don't know how the hell businesses will raise prices just for the sake of it..
They may force pubs to water down their ales. That would also prevent visiting American students getting drunk off of their half pint. .
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
well they're going to simply say that bars and clubs can't do offers like that. i don't know how they'll make drinks more expensive (as if they're not already!), but that is what they are talking about doing.
"The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.
"The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton
Originally posted by Ming
Again... you ignore the fact that the situation is completely different since there could be smoking and non smoking bars for people to CHOOSE to work in... You keep bringing up sterilized women as a strawman argument... nothing to do with this what so ever...
The sterilized woman is not a straw man (so to speak ). The analogy is clear: employers are not allowed to expose their workers to hazards if those hazards can be controlled. They're not allowed to say to workers, "We're not going to control the hazard and it's just your choice whether to suffer this avoidable exposure or do without this job." One workplace does not get to expose people to lead or asbestos and say, "Well, go work in one of the places that controls exposure if you don't want to be exposed." This is the way workplace health and safety law works. Finally, this is becoming the way it works with regard to workplace smoking. The analogy is exactly correct. Do you still not understand?
Have you ever worked in a bar... maybe you should stick to supjects you know something about Many people choose to work in bars because they like the life style and the pay. You are basically saying that working in a bar is a crappy job... Maybe you look down your nose at people who work in bars... but many would disagree with you.
Yes, I did work in a bar for about a year. I do know something about it. Have you ever had to settle for a crappy job? Maybe you wouldn't be so dismissive of the difficulties for people who really don't have good job choices. It sucked. The pay sucked. The lifestyle had its good points and its bad points, but it sure wasn't a job I would have chosen if I'd had a lot of options then. Maybe working in some other bar would have been better, but that's my point -- I didn't really have that choice you insist everyone has.
Being a little over dramitic aren't you... and totally unrealistic.
Didn't I clearly say that the choice wasn't as stark as the way I had presented it, but the nature of the choice was accurate? I know it wouldn't usually be about starvation, but think about it: if someone had a lot of choices, most people wouldn't take the low-paid, low-respect, low-freedom-of-choice bar job. Some would, but the bulk of people working in bars can't get jobs with better pay, better benefits, more personal choice, and less hazards. You're saying, "Let's let the job suck worse, and then if you don't like it, you can go and get some job that's even worse than this one would be without the deadly smoke."
And you also seem to overlook that if the person smoked... the additional risk would be almost non existent... There are far greater risks that the government already allows... to pick on this one is just pure discrimination of users of a legal product, and one that the government makes a ton of money off of through user taxes.
RAH, discussing this rationally, has already made that point, and I've already acknowledged it as something that conceivably could be made to work. I've discussed the flaws in the idea that would make it difficult to accomplish, given health and safety law in general and the sound reasons for it.
Why is tobacco legal, anyway? Tobacco kills maybe a thousand times as many people as heroin and methamphetamine? Ten thousand times as many? Even marijuana is illegal, and do you honestly think marijuana has seriously injured more than a few people in all of American history? So, yes, tobacco is legal, but that's only because of a lunatic degree of discrimination in FAVOR of tobacco. Legality is hardly a sound point to base your argument on.
Tobacco costs the country far more in additional health care costs than the relatively paltry sum collected in taxes. That's hardly a sound point to base an argument on, either.
Face up to it, Ming: Every single argument goes against smoking, except for the single argument that says you should be able to do whatever you want to.
That's an important argument, but look at it this way. You're saying, "My right to make my own decision about where to smoke has priority over your right to breathe clean air." And if you argue that you should be able to have your choice of a place to smoke, and let other people have their choice of a place to be free of smoke, then what you're saying is, "I get to make some places poisonous so you risk your health by going there; you only get to make some places where I have to step outside if I want a cigarette."
Let's hear your argument in defense of that balancing of your rights versus other people's rights.
Originally posted by debeest
The analogy is exactly correct. Do you still not understand?
You seem to be missing the point
Yes, I did work in a bar for about a year. I do know something about it. Have you ever had to settle for a crappy job? Maybe you wouldn't be so dismissive of the difficulties for people who really don't have good job choices.
I've worked as a janitor cleaning toliets... Being a bar tender was a much better job.
It sucked. The pay sucked. The lifestyle had its good points and its bad points, but it sure wasn't a job I would have chosen if I'd had a lot of options then.
Your opinion... others don't share it. I have some friends who are professional bartenders... they make good money and have no interest in anything else at this point in time.
Maybe working in some other bar would have been better, but that's my point -- I didn't really have that choice you insist everyone has.
Again... your experience of "one"...
Why is tobacco legal, anyway? Tobacco kills maybe a thousand times as many people as heroin and methamphetamine? Ten thousand times as many? Even marijuana is illegal, and do you honestly think marijuana has seriously injured more than a few people in all of American history? So, yes, tobacco is legal, but that's only because of a lunatic degree of discrimination in FAVOR of tobacco. Legality is hardly a sound point to base your argument on.
But it is legal... just like booze and fat food... and cars that go faster than the speed limit. It's about personal choice, not some lunatic degree of discrimination inf favor of tabacco.
Face up to it, Ming: Every single argument goes against smoking, except for the single argument that says you should be able to do whatever you want to.
Yep... heaven forbid that personal freedoms should get in the way of this discussion
That's an important argument, but look at it this way. You're saying, "My right to make my own decision about where to smoke has priority over your right to breathe clean air."
No... you keep saying that... the point here has evolved to seperate and limited places where it is allowed... so it doesn't infringe on your right to breathe clean air... if you wish to enter, then it's your choice, no infringement.
And if you argue that you should be able to have your choice of a place to smoke, and let other people have their choice of a place to be free of smoke, then what you're saying is, "I get to make some places poisonous so you risk your health by going there; you only get to make some places where I have to step outside if I want a cigarette."
But again.. your choice to enter or not... You are saying that it's ok to discriminate against people that don't agree with your point of view
Let's hear your argument in defense of that balancing of your rights versus other people's rights.
I am arguing a balance... Seperate and limited is a balance...
You are the one arguing a one way street in your favor
What surrender... You want discrimination, and I want a middle ground that answers the objections and doesn't discriminate... and allows for freedom of choice. I would think you should be about ready to raise the white flag
That would also prevent visiting American students getting drunk off of their half pint. 
.
Tweet
Comment