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
You seem to be asserting that every Muslim is a sociopathic murderer filled with rage. That would on the face of it seem to be an extreme racist claim. Apologies if I'm not getting you.
All this cartoon thing comes down to is that only an idiot would claim that people have the right to say what they want to whom they want whenever they want and in any manner they want.
you rather miss the point here. if every time someone makes a controversial comment about, or makes light of, a religion, he is threatened with violence, then pretty soon no one is going to make these sort of comments at all. these subjects become taboo and will not be discussed in the public domain. therefore this is clearly limiting free speech and free expression, even though the government is not involved.
What about such topics as:
– Jewish cultural practices and social norms being causally responsible for anti-semitism and/or disputes about casualty rates in the holocaust.
– Certain types of female sexual behaviour being precipitating factors in cases of rape.
– Actually attempting to explain "Why they hate us".
– Criticizing Israel (in the US)
Unlike the Mohammed cartoons, these are all issues which we would be better off being in possession of the facts than not. But you can be sure that any American newspaper that featured such a headline would be subject to death threats and/or threats of a boycott. If your argument is that some subjects will become taboo, then it's quite easy to retort that some subjects are already taboo in our own society in this very way. The only problem is that we seem to have a problem realizing that things like bomb-hat-Mohammed have a similar status to the Islamic community.
The difference between these questions and the Mohammed cartoon with the bomb hat is that the latter is primarily intended to be controversial and offensive. If someone wrote a book arguing that Islam was prone to violence and provided extensive evidence that this was so, it would be different, since the primary intention of the book would be to establish that fact and not to annoy people (even if it did annoy people).
No free speech code I know is based on the idea that people have the right to annoy each other. If there was such a right, then you would expect to see statements like "The right of the people to throw dog **** at each other shall not be infringed" in a constitution. Deliberate trolls aimed at a race or religion in the mass media should not be protected. Such speech only benefits racists or bigots.
Originally posted by Agathon
Let's say Condoleezza Rice failed to get agreement from the French government over some treaty. Would Americans think it appropriate for Le Monde to depict Sarzoky butt ****ing her and yelling "take this back to your cotton fields you n***er *****!!!".
Hilarious.
Or what about if Israel was caught selling US technology to the Chinese again and the Washington Post published a cartoon of Hitler's ghost visiting GWB at night saying, "See I told you that you should have gotten rid of the ****s!"
Funny.
Or what if a major paper started posting cartoons of the Japanese like the ones Dr Seuss used to draw?
Originally posted by Agathon
This was a deliberate insult and not an attempt to make a substantive criticism.
Friends who've lived in Denmark weren't surprised anyway. They to a man had wondered how long the appalling racism allowed in Danish society could stay hidden from the international community.
Agathon, are you aware of why the newspaper in question came up with the idea of printing those cartoons in the first place? The statement came after a Danish author presented to the public his troubles finding an illustrator for a children's book featuring Muhammed.
Taking that into consideration, I'm inclined to go with 'substantative criticism' rather than 'deliberate insult' as the point of publishing this material. This is true even if they were aware their decision would insult some people - that would be true for a million other stories or features any major newspaper runs.
Oh, and on the other point - it's my impression this 'appaling Danish racism' (deliberately put in quotes, because I fundamentally don't agree with the premise) has been quite the talk of the town in Europe for at least six years now.
As long as we're on the subject of religious idiots here is a case about a Saudi woman who is about to be put to death for, get this, witchcraft. Some fat Saudi can't get his dick up so he's accused a woman of being a witch and casting a spell on him. Naturally, the Saudi Islamic police believe this rubbish.
Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'
By Heba Saleh
BBC News
Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution of a woman convicted of witchcraft.
In a letter to King Abdullah, the rights group described the trial and conviction of Fawza Falih as a miscarriage of justice.
The illiterate woman was detained by religious police in 2005 and allegedly beaten and forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read.
Among her accusers was a man who alleged she made him impotent.
Human Rights Watch said that Ms Falih had exhausted all her chances of appealing against her death sentence and she could only now be saved if King Abdullah intervened.
'Undefined' crime
The US-based group is asking the Saudi ruler to void Ms Falih's conviction and to bring charges against the religious police who detained her and are alleged to have mistreated her.
Its letter to King Abdullah says the woman was tried for the undefined crime of witchcraft and that her conviction was on the basis of the written statements of witnesses who said that she had bewitched them.
Human Rights Watch says the trial failed to meet the safeguards in the Saudi justice system.
The confession which the defendant was forced to fingerprint was not even read out to her, the group says.
Also Ms Falih and her representatives were not allowed to attend most of the hearings.
When an appeal court decided she should not be executed, the law courts imposed the death sentence again, arguing that it would be in the public interest.
Originally posted by Oerdin
As long as we're on the subject of religious idiots here is a case about a Saudi woman who is about to be put to death for, get this, witchcraft. Some fat Saudi can't get his dick up so he's accused a woman of being a witch and casting a spell on him. Naturally, the Saudi Islamic police believe this rubbish.
This is the kind of stuff that needs to be said. This is what freedom of speech is for. Not for bigoted crap.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Agathon, are you aware of why the newspaper in question came up with the idea of printing those cartoons in the first place? The statement came after a Danish author presented to the public his troubles finding an illustrator for a children's book featuring Muhammed.
I didn't know that. I don't think it changes much. It's a long way from that to drawing the guy as a terrorist.
There's a right way and a wrong way to go about such criticism. If you do it the right way, only a few crazies will get mad. If you go about it the wrong way, then a lot of people get mad and it just gives the crazies more ammunition to be even crazier.
I've taught many Islamic students myself. Almost all are quite happy to discuss the perceived shortcomings of their religion as long as they are treated with respect. On the other hand, like everyone, they get really mad when they are the objects of obvious prejudice. The same is the case with Jews, Christians, Mormons, etc. As soon as they catch a whiff of troll, things become unreasonable very quickly.
I think that the cartoons should have been published, but in a different context, and of course there are contexts in which they should be shown. A Canadian professor got in trouble for putting them on his door, but I argued at the time that the university was an appropriate place to display them to invite discussion.
I never knew about the Danish racism stuff. I always thought that Denmark was a pretty liberal place (caveat, except Winston). When the cartoons came out, I was talking about them with some acquaintances and expressing my amazement that they were published in Denmark. A couple of them had spent a year in Denmark and told me that they weren't surprised at all. Subsequently, other people (including my brother) said the same thing.
You seem to be asserting that every Muslim is a sociopathic murderer filled with rage. That would on the face of it seem to be an extreme racist claim. Apologies if I'm not getting you.
All this cartoon thing comes down to is that only an idiot would claim that people have the right to say what they want to whom they want whenever they want and in any manner they want.
No, I'm not saying that every Muslim is. Some are. Just like not every American is a war-mongering Christian fundamentalist Repug. But some nevertheless are.
I'm not saying that I support publishing pictures that mock a religion or a race or anything. But I deeply resent the use of violence to repress free speech. I view the reprinting of this picture not as a "You Muslims are all sociopathic murderers filled with rage, eat this" gesture, but as a "You can't order us around and tell us what we can publish and what we can't, eat this". And that's why I support it.
If some paper published a picture of a nuke-wielding George Washington and the US sent a detachment of SEALs to disappear the artist, every paper should have printed that picture on their front page.
Also, Godwin's Law says you lost this discussion already. :P
Graffiti in a public toilet
Do not require skill or wit
Among the **** we all are poets
Among the poets we are ****.
No, I'm not saying that every Muslim is. Some are. Just like not every American is a war-mongering Christian fundamentalist Repug. But some nevertheless are.
I'm not saying that I support publishing pictures that mock a religion or a race or anything. But I deeply resent the use of violence to repress free speech. I view the reprinting of this picture not as a "You Muslims are all sociopathic murderers filled with rage, eat this" gesture, but as a "You can't order us around and tell us what we can publish and what we can't, eat this". And that's why I support it.
If some paper published a picture of a nuke-wielding George Washington and the US sent a detachment of SEALs to disappear the artist, every paper should have printed that picture on their front page.
Also, Godwin's Law says you lost this discussion already. :P
Yeah I can appreciate you wanting to give a big "up yours" to the people threatening the artists. But the problem is that in reacting to the extreme side of the arguement you alienate the middle. The vast majority of reasonable muslims who are offended by the picture but would never dream of threatening or doing harm to anyone. In fact you push them towards the extreme.
Thats particuarly dangerous now when we should be trying to encourage peaceful coexistance with the middle east and downplaying fanaticism on all sides. Getting into a pissing contest hurts everyone.
Look at it this way. Suppose an extreme racial group (here in Amercia the example would be the KKK) posted an obviously racist cartoon in a newspaper. In reaction to that someone killed the leader of the KKK. As much as you would disagree with the killing, you wouldn't want the racist comic printed in every newspaper. Its still a bad idea regardless of the extreme reaction.
People have to realize that the extremists are looking for stuff like these cartoons to exploit so that they can make the West look bad. People have to be smart, not idiots. They are just helping the extremists.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by Murg
Look at it this way. Suppose an extreme racial group (here in Amercia the example would be the KKK) posted an obviously racist cartoon in a newspaper. In reaction to that someone killed the leader of the KKK. As much as you would disagree with the killing, you wouldn't want the racist comic printed in every newspaper. Its still a bad idea regardless of the extreme reaction.
In the situation you describe some image is playing an important part in the story. Then you'd want to include it almost by definition, just like you'd expect an article on Picasso to include a reprint of a Picasso painting.
In the case of Muhammed cartoon craziness, this point is even clearer, because here the image sort of IS the story. I better add that Kurt Westergaard's work has also been reprinted in newspapers whose editors disagreed with Jyllands-Posten's original decision to publish it.
That's true even if Kidicious is right that printing cartoons is just peachy from the POV of a Muslim extremist. Journalists aren't generally supposed to withhold information like this anyway.
Your analogy is also flawed because these cartoons are not 'obviously racist' in the sense that you'd expect from the KKK.
Agathon, I'd love to take you up on the notion that Denmark is a haven for racists and see if you can reasonably back up that statement - but then it should probably be in a thread that's not specifically about cartoons. Give me a heads-up if you want.
Oh, and Agathon - something more on the Muhammed thing:
Originally posted by Agathon
On the other hand, like everyone, they get really mad when they are the objects of obvious prejudice. The same is the case with Jews, Christians, Mormons, etc. As soon as they catch a whiff of troll, things become unreasonable very quickly.
Sure, everybody gets mad when they feel like victims, including Jews and Christians and Mormons. I'm reluctant to discount the religious differences so easily though.
Do you think the Jews in a similar situation would be equally inclined to burn flags in the streets of Tel Aviv? Do you suppose hardline Christians overseas would be equally likely to request official apologies from a foreign gov't because of what private citizens do with their private newspaper?
In the situation you describe some image is playing an important part in the story. Then you'd want to include it almost by definition, just like you'd expect an article on Picasso to include a reprint of a Picasso painting.
In the case of Muhammed cartoon craziness, this point is even clearer, because here the image sort of IS the story. I better add that Kurt Westergaard's work has also been reprinted in newspapers whose editors disagreed with Jyllands-Posten's original decision to publish it.
That's true even if Kidicious is right that printing cartoons is just peachy from the POV of a Muslim extremist. Journalists aren't generally supposed to withhold information like this anyway.
Your analogy is also flawed because these cartoons are not 'obviously racist' in the sense that you'd expect from the KKK.
I have no problem with journalists reporting on the story (though I think it would be preferable for them not to include the pictures). My complaint is with the initial posting.
Journalists withhold information all the time, be it the names of minors involved in a situation, movements and numbers of troops they may be traveling with, protection of their sources, etc. Freedom of the press isnt a global mandate to say whatever they want. (again Im not saying that anything the artists/papers did was illegal, just saying that askign the journalists to be more aware of the offensive nature of their material isnt going to far).
I used the racist example because its one that western people typically understand as offensive. There isn't anything sacrosant about racism that makes it the only thing that is offensive. Sometimes its hard for people to understand that pictures mohammad could be offensive (because picturing/insulting icons of our religions doesn't carry the same weight). Every culture has its own offensive actions. And most people assume that their cultures offensive acts are the "correct" ones, but thats a pretty arrogant world view.
Not that Im saying you are arrogant, in fact I think this problem is most prominant in my country (USA) and I was appaled by the anti-muslim behavior since 9/11. Europeans, in my experience, have a much more tolerant and moderate viewpoint toward other cultures.
Originally posted by Murg
My complaint is with the initial posting.
That was your sole complaint? Didn't you say that if the KKK leader died in a politically motivated assasination beacause of a picture he published, we wouldn't want to see a reprint?
Anyway, I still can't grasp why you'd think it preferable that journalists didn't include pictures in an article that's essentially about a picture.
Withholding the name of your secret source on the inside or the movements of troops you're travelling with are necessary things for a reporter to have something to report. They contribute to the value of his journalistic work, whereas leaving out essential information 'because it might hurt someone' diminishes said work. Huge difference there.
Sometimes its hard for people to understand that pictures mohammad could be offensive (because picturing/insulting icons of our religions doesn't carry the same weight). Every culture has its own offensive actions. And most people assume that their cultures offensive acts are the "correct" ones, but thats a pretty arrogant world view.
Sure, but does every culture have something they could get equally worked up about as this? I don't think mine does. That was the point with my previous question to Agathon.
Tweet
Comment