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
Stop! We must "understand" why society made these young people this way and fix it. In the meantime, these youths need counselling in order to overcome their societally induced emotional disorder! Punishment is no answer. Never was.
You know, I hear that anti-utilitarian argument a thousand times, and I've never seen anyone hold their ground...
Try me.
Since when ethical theories are about what societies do, and not about what societies SHOULD do?
But when you try to impliment an unrealistic "should" into a real world situation, you may well end up with disaster despite the best of intentions. The utilitarian thing to do in that context is to limit utilitarianism! . And do you not think that considerations of human nature have implications in the realm of prescription?
"they can't help it, that's who they are!"
Can a society, or any external (to the sociopathic beholder) body determine what they are to the certain degree required to hold such a conviction, and thus deny their existence for ones own (and not their) interests, upon that basis? There is a logical barrier present there... the is-ought, or Hume gap.
because whatever it is, compassion isn't part of their brain design ( that's the point of the disorder)
You state it as though it were a fact, but can you be certain of any logical barrier present that would cause it to be incurable? Is the fact that it is incurable reason enough to execute, baring in mind other measures can be taken to protect the public, if you really must?
Nonetheless, would you claim that the sociopath is not responsible for their actions?
I have no problem with you saying it, as long as you admit it's a flaw.
I will not do so. I do not run my life upon the basis of philosophy, for me it is an art, and intellectual machination, not a religion nor a personal moral code as such. It is a part of me, but not the part of me, and deterministically, I will react differently in each individual situation.
If someone comes up to me on the street, punching and screaming at me, am I going to a) ramble on about why the Mill Limit would prevent me from hitting him and how he should stand down and desist due to the consequences of his actions and the flawed intentions he has.... or b) play football with his testicles?
I have emotions, I act upon them... we humans don't have just a head, we have a heart too and as humans we act upon both. Whether one belongs in a philosophy paper or a government has no contextual relevance to other situations.
Of course I judge my opinion superior to his. That's why I hold my opinion, and not his. His flaw, though is not about his opinion, but his admittance that he would not act according to his his own reasoning, and ethical hypothesis, and hurt him.
It's not a flaw. I act upon my own psychology and while my philosophy in some respects may be reflective of it, it is not entirely indicative of it. Or would you argue that ones psychological state of mind and artistic conceptual structures have to be aligned perfectly, or at least intended that way?
"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
I contend there is no such system for humans, and as such it is not appropriate terminology to use the term "flaw". There is no ideal, there is no perfect, and ergo, there is no flaw...
A good point . I would say that we could all have our own philosophy in our minds, our perfect goal for ourselves, our perfect opinions etc, but to model our lives upon that is ridiculous... we're healthiest when head and heart are in balance, not when one has dominion over the other. That's why I regard philosophy as an art, not a usable science.
"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Originally posted by Thorn
I shot a dog off my porch before... it was eaten the chickens, should I be punished?!
Why of course. You should have tried to understand the dog's anti-social behavior and attempted to correct his bad behavior by rewarding good behavior. Resorting to instant punishment of anti-social behavior never works. We know this from liberals, do we not, who have stripped society of punishment in favor of understanding.
A good point . I would say that we could all have our own philosophy in our minds, our perfect goal for ourselves, our perfect opinions etc, but to model our lives upon that is ridiculous... we're healthiest when head and heart are in balance, not when one has dominion over the other. That's why I regard philosophy as an art, not a usable science.
Why of course, we can have no punishment for these youths because Whaleboy and his liberal crew have defined all morality as being relative. From the youths point of view, the treatment of the dog was morally correct. People like Whaleboy, who may disagree, must respect the morals of the youths who, after all, needed a football.
Originally posted by Thorn
Naw... it was eaten my chow, damn thing should of known better then eating MY food.
No, Thorn. You were at fault, totally, for not understanding your dogs' needs. You should have known his need for hunting small animals and should have adjusted YOUR behavior to accommodate his needs. You should have given him MORE chickens to chase and eat, and gone without food as self-inflicted pain for your thoughtlessness.
Why of course. You should have tried to understand the dog's anti-social behavior and attempted to correct his bad behavior by rewarding good behavior. Resorting to instant punishment of anti-social behavior never works. We know this from liberals, do we not, who have stripped society of punishment in favor of understanding.
Well technically anti-social is a term only applicable to those capable of functioning within that given society, not as either a product or something unrelated of it, like a pet for example, which operates according to its will, not of society, so to say it is anti-social is ridiculous. Furthermore, the question of punishment or negative reinforcement to sociological ends cannot surely apply to such a creature.
Why of course, we can have no punishment for these youths because Whaleboy and his liberal crew have defined all morality as being relative. From the youths point of view, the treatment of the dog was morally correct. People like Whaleboy, who may disagree, must respect the morals of the youths who, after all, needed a football.
A strawman, a society has rules to function, relativism still applies but within those rules, within that context, I merely go for consistency atop that. In an unloaded, neutral, hypothetical context all behaviour is relative, but no such context exists in society, so they should be punished and corrected logically, and emotionally for me I'd go much further.
"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
. And do you not think that considerations of human nature have implications in the realm of prescription?
. I would say that we could all have our own philosophy in our minds, our perfect goal for ourselves, our perfect opinions etc, but to model our lives upon that is ridiculous... we're healthiest when head and heart are in balance, not when one has dominion over the other. That's why I regard philosophy as an art, not a usable science.
Tweet
Comment