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 lord of the mark
If the effects were equivalent to male circumcision, IE no proven loss of functionality, then that would be fine, yes.
So mutilation is fine as long as there's no 'proven' loss of functionality? So as a child your parents can cut little parts out of your arm, so long as it's just bits of flesh that haven't been proven to reduce ability? Or to scar their back with their names?
Smile For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something "Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
Even if you were right I'd still feel cheated. If I'm with a girl who prefers mutilated genitals then I would want to be able to demonstrate my affection and devotion to her by electing myself to let a docter carve parts of my body away to please her. If someone did it to me as an infant I'm cheated out of such a gesture.
And again, why wouldn't the foreskin have disappeared from humanity by now if it's presence made men less sexually attractive to women? Why wouldn't women be getting their children circumcised all over the world especially in countires like Germany where the women have managed to force men to urinate sitting down. You would think that they would be geting their sons circumcised their if they thought it was intrinsically preferable.
The thing is that they don't look at it as "mutilated genitals."
Like I said, it's a fine piece of art.
I like how some of you guys are banking on the word, "mutilation" for sensational effect.
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
"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. "
If the effects were equivalent to male circumcision, IE no proven loss of functionality, then that would be fine, yes.
How about this proposition lotm? Will you accept a ban on all secular, non-medical (ie not meant to treat a disease already in evidence) modifications of peoples bodies without their consent? I don't care if sane people do things to peoples bodies in compliance with thousands of years of religion and tradition that have convinced them that G-d insists they do this. I only care when people do this because they think they personally know what is best for that persons body for all eternity over all possible objections that person might ever have. The sheer brutal arrogance of that stance infuriates me to no end.
I don't see it as the parents choice in the first place. I see it as the person's choice. Their own body.
Children are in the care of their parents in every western society. They make all choices for the child that they care to, except in circumstance specified by the state. To take this right away, in reality, not in theory, you would have to have the state ban circumcision - which was the point of this thread, btw. The most recent case where that was done was in the USSR. The result was that thousands of men ended up worse off than in the current western system. You ignore the real costs those men. A full moral analysis of this issue MUST take those men into account, and explain either A. How the benefits to others outweighs them, through greater numbers, or whatever or B. Why the costs to them is of nul moral significance.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Originally posted by Asher
"mutilated genitals" is a bit harsh.
"lesser genitals" is perhaps more apt.
Well, you know girls like anything with 10% off
Smile For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something "Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
Children are in the care of their parents in every western society. They make all choices for the child that they care to, except in circumstance specified by the state. To take this right away, in reality, not in theory, you would have to have the state ban circumcision -
Not at all. It just needs an age limit- such as no circumcisions under the age of 18 except for clear medical need. No ban is necessary.
So mutilation is fine as long as there's no 'proven' loss of functionality? So as a child your parents can cut little parts out of your arm, so long as it's just bits of flesh that haven't been proven to reduce ability? Or to scar their back with their names?
I dont know, id have to see how that worked out in the practice of an actual culture, and what the children brought up with that actually felt about it. Kinda like how I take note of the different reactions of women with FGM and of Jewish and muslim men. I dont judge these things in the abstract - i look at the social reality.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Not at all. It just needs an age limit- such as no circumcisions under the age of 18 except for clear medical need. No ban is necessary.
I meant to say "ban infant circumcision"
at least you will admit that whats being called for is state action, and are not dancing around it.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
I suggest we drop this discussion, its not going to resolve anything.
Actually it will. what bothers me is the principle that people accept this. It happens and continues to happen and they want to say it's just fine.
There was a victim of a terrible drunken hit and run accident who was horribly burned resulting in massive scarring over 95% of his body the loss of fingers and generally ruined. this kid when he finally was able to face the driver in court a few years later stated that all he really wanted was for the driver to admit that he was sorry. That's it. i can really identify with that. It's much easier to deal with injustice if there is justice or remorse. But my point was this isn't the time to just chill out because this is such a minor issue. Asking me to chill out over this only serves to further inflame my resentment.
I would post a pic of my unit here for all of you to admire but unfortunatley the image is too big.
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 lord of the mark
Children are in the care of their parents in every western society. They make all choices for the child that they care to, except in circumstance specified by the state. To take this right away, in reality, not in theory, you would have to have the state ban circumcision - which was the point of this thread, btw.
I don't see it as a right. Parents decide things that are non-permanent, when there is a medical necessity, or when there are two courses of action. When there is a course of action that is permanent, and a course of inaction, unless that person consents, then I believe it should be inaction.
Originally posted by lord of the mark
The most recent case where that was done was in the USSR. The result was that thousands of men ended up worse off than in the current western system. You ignore the real costs those men. A full moral analysis of this issue MUST take those men into account, and explain either A. How the benefits to others outweighs them, through greater numbers, or whatever or B. Why the costs to them is of nul moral significance.
Take out morality then. If you mean people doing it elsewhere, in worse conditions, you have a point. However I wouldn't want the state to change laws just because of a religion. I still think circumcision is mutilation. It is a the removal of a part of your body without your consent. Inaction means you can do it later if you decide. It's about having the rights to your own body, which IMHO, ourweighs your parents right to your body. That's why sexual contact is generally illegal too, because it's without your consent. If a religious believed all children should be deflowered as children, I would think it wrong. If a religion things all children should have part of their genitals removed, I think that's wrong.
Wrt the USSR, I don't have any knowledge of that, what happened?
Smile For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something "Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
Tweet
Comment