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
Majority rules again eh? Just because you dont like there politic views makes it ok?
Majority rules indeed. And as soon as the majority wants more freedom of speech then the law will be changed. There are debates on the law all the time, but as it still stands by far the majority of the people support it.
No..the constitution is not a living document. Men didnt give the ultimate sacrifice just for someone to change it. Guns are civil liberties...
Isn't it so that if 2/3 of the congress/senate/whatever votes in favor of changing the constitution it will be changed? If 90% of the Americans want it changed they elect people who agree with their views, and they in turn vote in favor of changing the constitution. Or are you telling me the constitution can't be changed at all at any time?
Originally posted by Roland
It would be quite interesting to debate differences in the fundamental rights traditions of western countries,
Put forth a question for debate and see what happens. Don't automatically assume that people want a troll fest.
Majority rules indeed.
Tyranny of the Majority?
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
A few years from now... what if they decide that your views are to extreme? Then you are on the recieving end of this law
You know what they said about Nazi Germany. First they outlawed the Communists...nobody cared, because they were communist. Then they outlawed the Anarchists. Again, nobody seemed to give hoot. Then the Moderates....again they didnt seem to mind...Capitalists and Fascists never liked any of them. Then they came for the Capitalist's....at that time there was no one left to raise a stink.
You know what they said about Nazi Germany. First they outlawed the Communists...nobody cared, because they were communist. Then they outlawed the Anarchists. Again, nobody seemed to give hoot. Then the Moderates....again they didnt seem to mind...Capitalists and Fascists never liked any of them. Then they came for the Capitalist's....at that time there was no one left to raise a stink.
That's a completely different situation. All those groups were banned within a decade or two. The only parties ever outlawed in Holland were Nazi parties. Communists are still around here. Only Nazis are banned. And if you knew what the Nazis did to my country you'd agree. It's been this way for 56 years here. Laws didn't get tougher, and people aren't thrown in jail for being a Nazi (unless they commited other related crimes) anymore. And, unlike in Britain and the USA, the governement can't just tap phones and other things listed in the CNN article.
Why isn't the Communist party banned in Europe? Thier rule was far longer and just as harsh as the Nazis were. Why ban one and not the other?
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
Originally posted by Roland
To all those yanks so concerned about our freedom of speech: You know, your former secretary of state, dumb piece of **** Notbright, found it worth reducing diplomatic relations because of Haider's FP becoming part of Austria's government. Must be a truly horrible man when the US PC crowd identifies him as such. And how many criminal convictions or only trials can you name against him for racist or xenophobic or hatefilled remarks ? Hmmm... lessee.... hmmm... damn, I'd say "zero". Read the tabloid or rightwing newspapers here (if you can). The laws on the book don't apply to vitually all of that. The average idiot does not reach the level of "Wiederbetätigung" or "Verhetzung".
Spin, spin, spin, spin,
Chris:
I'll try to address what might constitute a point of yours.
"Just as I had forseen, my two favorite European appologists tried to spin doctor their way out of this"
I suppose that's why I posted the link for everyone to see that nonsense draft.
The point is Roland, we address our problems, not try to bury them in retoric, as you and the boy try to.
That's "Herr". Und wenn wir schon dabei sind, kulturelle Unterschiede bedeuten nicht dass man etwas notwendiger Weise nicht versteht, sondern lediglich, dass man den kulturellen Hintergrund berücksichtigen sollte. Das schließt auch ein dass ein US-amerikanisches Grundrechtsverständnis keineswegs universal ist, nicht einmal für den nordatlantischen Kulturkreis. Ganz im Gegenteil, es ist ein eher eigentümliches Gebilde. Sogar Kanada orientiert sich eher an der EMRK als an der Bill of Rights.
Of course their are cultural differences, and that the bill of rights doesn't apply universally, and as for what Canada does, I find them a restrictive society and a welfare state, quite frankly.
Also, there is no need to post in German, you should let all the folks read this.
Have fun runing that through bablefish.
Didn't need to, and never use it anyway.
Public speech, not thoughts. On the other side, we don't brainwash people into being "patriotic".
Nor do we, and it isn't needed.
You shouldn't think this website is a good cross section of the USA, we seem to get a lot of rebellious youngters here.
The average American loves his country, with no need for proding. It's a shame you think otherwise, but your quite wrong.
Guns: That's just silly as a constitutional right. As a simple legal right, why not.
Abortion: That's just silly as a constitutional right. As a decriminalised conduct, why not.
"Silly as a Constitutional right", but a right, nontheless.
I personally am anti-gun, but the right is there.
As for abortion, I'm pro-choice, and always will be.
Let's see our American friends tackle that one
Your such a silly young man.
When you get older, and start viewing the world more objectivly, you will begin to understand all of this, but that time isn't here yet.
I believe Saddam because his position is backed up by logic and reason...David Floyd i'm an ignorant greek...MarkG
Also, there is no need to post in German, you should let all the folks read this.
Yeah! Official language of the forum is English and Finnish!
"Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self." - Dennis Kucinich, candidate for the U. S. presidency
"That’s the future of the Democratic Party: providing Republicans with a number of cute (but not that bright) comfort women." - Adam Yoshida, Canada's gift to the world
Why isn't the Communist party banned in Europe? Thier rule was far longer and just as harsh as the Nazis were. Why ban one and not the other?
Reasons? I don't know about the rest of Europe, but in Holland it's obvious.
A. Nazis raped Holland
B. Nazis are per definition rascist
C. Dutch nazis worshipped Hitler, dutch communists didn't worship Stalin.
"A" is of course motivated by history. Holland didn't suffer under the soviets, only under the nazis.
"B" is also rather obvious. While many communist regimes were rather rascist, rascism isn't part of the communist/marxist idealogy, while Nazis are per definition rascist (anti-jew, anti-roma. neo-nazis are also anti-muslim).
"C" is an important distinction. Dutch Nazis, or at least the ones banned, were openly pro-Hitler. Dutch communists are openly pro-Lenin, but (openly) anti-Stalin. Lenin did make some mistakes, but can in no way be compared to Hitler or Stalin.
Eventhough in practice communism and nazism turned out remarkably similar, you have to see the clear distinction in idealogy. And Marxists aren't per definition totalitarian or rascist.
About the banned Nazi party. There were two extreme-right parties in Holland at that time. The CP and the CD.
The CP openly denied the holocaust, made no secret of their desire for a nazi-style governement in Holland, made it an official party goal to get rid of any and all foreigners or put them in camps, and openly pledged support to Hitler's actions during WW2. That got them banned.
The CD was a tad smarter than that. At first, they did similar things, but after some fines they moderated their official viewpoints. The CP wasn't very smart and after fines and warnings still did the same things. The CD did scrap all pro-nazi, pro-hitler and rascist remarks from the official party rethorics, and was therefor not banned.
However, in the end it did not matter. the CP had no seats in the parliament, and when the next elections came the CD lost their last seats too.
Article 1 in the Dutch Constitution is commonly known as the anti-discrimination law. Discrimination in public, in whatever form, including verbal descrimination, is illegal. Officially it says "instigating (sp) hatred".
Today has been announced that a muslim imam will be prosecuted for his anti-homosexual remarks. The guy said that gays are a danger to society.
Now there's once again the discussion between Article 1 and Article 2 of the Dutch Constitution (I believe Article 2 includes freedom of speech, have to look this one up). However, Article 1 is the most important part of the Constitution.
I'll look up the exact text of Article 1 and other articles.
Last edited by Saint Marcus; December 5, 2001, 18:55.
Originally posted by Wraith
--"French are chauvinistic but not xenophobic. There's a difference,"
Yes, but how many countries have laws (strong suggestions?) regarding the use of foreign-import words?
If not the French, then the French Goverment would be in big trouble.
Wraith
You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you odd
The French Academy has institutionalized a department which translates to french the new english terms (most of them have to do with technology).
If the media or the public want to use the english terms instead of the french of course they can use whatever they want.
This is a great idea. It limits the penetration of the english language. What POSSIBLY can be wrong with that?
And there is an added bonus. If different media give different translations to english words there would be chaos since the word "IT Technologies" for example would have 2 and 3 and 4 translations making it impossible to know what one is talking about.
I hope Greece will do the same and fast. I support it whoheatedly.
The French are the big motha of cultural defense.
And they don't only stop at that, God bless them.
They also make obligatory that radio stations play french songs at 50% of their air play time. This has led to a new biorth of french music production and has pulled the rag under the feet of american sub culture
(I don;t support this for Greece since 80% of radio stations play greek songs at 90% of their air play time already, and this is not gonna change - it's a cultural thing).
They thoroughy translate every single movie hits the grounds of France etc etc.
Hurray for the french
What exactly is the problem?
Last edited by Bereta_Eder; December 5, 2001, 18:36.
The text is a bit different than I thought. Article 2 also isn't about freedom of speech. In total it's freakin long and boring (of course) so bear with me, it will take some time to go through the whole thing.
De Nederlandse Grondwet (The Dutch Constitution)
written in 1848 by J.R. Thorbecke (parts based on earlier documents of the Batavian Republic and the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands)
Historical context: Holland just became a monarchy a few decades earlier after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. A document was needed to decrease the power of the monarch, and list ground rights.
Chapter 1: ground rights
Article 1: Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan.
Translation: All who reside in the Netherlands, should be treated equally in all cases. Discriminations on grounds of religion, system of beliefs (??), political preference, race, gender, or on any other ground, is not permitted.
* Discrimination is not permitted. This includes verbal discrimation as well.
Article 6, subsection 1: Ieder heeft het recht zijn godsdienst of levensovertuiging, individueel of in gemeenschap met anderen, vrij te belijden, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet.
Translation: Everyone has the right to his religion or system of beliefs, individually or in community with others, free to practice, within everyone's responsibility within the law.
* Freedom of religion, but only for as long as it doesn't violate the law.
Article 7, subsection 3, part A: Voor het openbaren van gedachten of gevoelens door andere dan in de voorgaande leden genoemde middelen heeft niemand voorafgaand verlof nodig wegens de inhoud daarvan, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet.
Translation: Expressing thoughts or feeling through other then in previous articles mentioned means [paper, tv, radio, mentioned in Article 7, subsections 1 and 2] does not require permission for it's content, within everyone's responsibility within the law.
* Freedom of speech. It states anyone can say what he or she wants, without needing permission. However, only as long as it doesn't violate the law.
So people here have freedom of speech and religion and just about everything else, but with one vital addition. The freedom a certain person has/wants should not conflict with other laws. Every article about people's rights ends with "behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet". And as Article 1, the most important article of the Constitution, states: Discrimination is not allowed. So your civil liberties may not violate Article 1 of the Constitution, which bans all forms of discrimination, including verbal.
And as some Americans always say...the Constitution is a living document.
The governement can not change the Constitution. Only the Tweede Kamer (Second Chamber, parliament) is allowed to change the Constitution. If it decides to do this, with a 51% majority, the parliament itself will be resolved. A new election will be held. Then the new parliament needs to vote on the change. If at least 100 out of 150 votes is for the change (abstains count as nay votes), the vote goes to the Eerste Kamer (First Chamber, senate). If in the senate at least 50 out of 75 vote for the change (absains are also considered nay votes) the Constitution is changed.
And this is of course pointless. Most Dutchmen support Article 1. 51% of the parliament will never decide to change Article 1, and if it did the new elected parliament will without any doubt vote against the change and certainly not in favor with at least 100 votes. So changing Article 1 is impossible. Only a European law stands above the Constitution, and only if that states that Discrimination in a verbal way is allowed, then it will be allowed in Holland.
Ugh.. that Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution is what I find abhorrent. Why should discrimination be prohibited. You gave reasons for outlawing Nazi speech (which I also disagree with), but what is the reason for outlawing ALL discriminatory speech?
“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)
Tweet
Comment