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 SpencerH
As I inferred, I would not take the case. Without precedent or some other legal measure, how am I to define "cruel and unusual aside" from my personal whim.
There is loads of precedent on "cruel and unusual punishment".
“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)
Ok, since you asked so kindly, I will explain it to you.
Why ask if he wants to argue that it doesn't impact the child's psyche when it seemed fairly obvious that wasn't even close to what his objection was.
Raping a child likely inflicts more harm on them than killing them would. On one hand you have a child dead, but at least their suffering is over. On the other you have a child who will live a life almost surely rife with severe emotional problems... and a significant chance they'll (at least attempt to) end their own life from the pain anyways. - Aeson
Pardon me, but what a load of BS. - Winston
You'll note that Winston quoted my entire passage offered here. You'll also note, he didn't qualify what was BS in it, just that it was a "load of BS". Technically then, he was saying my entire passage was BS. (Whatever his real intent was is irrelevant, and I will explain to you why later.) So these are the opinions he was calling BS, and even went so far as to say they weren't "anything you could ever hope to back up with actual facts":
- A dead child isn't suffering anymore.
- Raping a child does not usually cause them severe emotional or psychological problems.
- Said problems won't have a significant effect on whether they attempt suicide.
The first is theological and certainly can't be factually argued. (Though I would have a hard time respecting any religious views, or those who offered them, which would have a murdered child suffering in the afterlife.)
In regards to the second, it is rather well established that child molestation leads to emotional problems for the victim. "Severe" is obviously a subjective term, and so to argue with it would be difficult at best. This is the one I chose to mock because of that.
The third would be difficult to prove either way of course, since suicide, even by those who have been molested, can be due to many factors. But it's obvious that emotional trauma can add to the potential for someone to attempt suicide. Just how much so is going to vary from case to case, but even then couldn't be quantified either way.
The reason why his "real intent" is irrelevant is because Winston was also *****ing about opinion. An opinion that he admits "sounds like an opinion" but he pretends isn't an opinion so as to make some inane "point". He was obviously trying to read something into my statements that wasn't there, trying to address them as if they were offered as facts, when even he admitted it sounded like an opinion, before "refuting" himself. So why should he be afforded the consideration of "what he really meant" when he's already set the tone in that regard? I was just responding to him according to the rules he had already set.
Which is also why "facts" was in quotation marks, to make fun of him for *****ing about opinions, when all he's done in this thread (aside from naming the justices) was opinion. The quotation marks denote a level of sarcasm.
So the sum total of my response to Winston's idiocy, was for me to mock him for it and use technicalities against his statement. Only fair considering he decided to set the tone of the conversation, and was *****ing about making statements that weren't supported by fact.
I find it quite amusing that you take issue with what I said to Winston, but not what Winston said to me. It once again illustrates your tendency towards partisanship rather than consistent logic. He was the one putting words in my mouth, not I. But you ***** about me putting words in his mouth, which is you putting words in my mouth. Thanks for the laughs.
So these are the opinions he was calling BS, and even went so far as to say they weren't "anything you could ever hope to back up with actual facts":
- A dead child isn't suffering anymore.
- Raping a child does not usually cause them severe emotional or psychological problems.
- Said problems won't have a significant effect on whether they attempt suicide.
You and I and everyone else who is actually thinking knows that he said what a load of BS to was the first statement you made in the paragraph. These three points are all in support of the first statement made. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize he was taken umbrage at the main point and not necessarily the supports of the main point. Not everyone likes to prune and trim every portion of a quote. He isolated a paragraph that including a main point and 3 supports and you take that to mean that his BS applies to the 3 supporting sentences rather than the main premise?!
Is a bit of common sense too much to ask from you?
He was the one putting words in my mouth, not I. But you ***** about me putting words in his mouth, which is you putting words in my mouth.
A) What words is he putting in your mouth?
B) Hiding behind an "if" is pretty cheeky. We all know what you were attempting to do. You wanted to change the goalposts from "Raping a child likely inflicts more harm on them" to "sexual molestation does not affect a child's psyche" in a pretty damned transparent way. And then you have the nerve to speak about "consistent logic". Wow.
“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)
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Thanks Captain Obvious. I was trying to search for some common ground here first.
And I'll have to agree with Winston on the what a load of BS stuff about raping a child is worse than murdering one.
No, but raping dozens, or in some cases hundreds, of children surely is worse than murdering one.
It surely is no such thing.
“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)
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You and I and everyone else who is actually thinking knows that he said what a load of BS to was the first statement you made in the paragraph.
It doesn't matter what he wanted to say, what he said is what I addressed. Unlike you, I don't try to read minds, and when confronted by an argumentative opponent, and do not give them the benefit of the doubt when they've already dictated that it will not be given.
As for the technicalities, they are there to address if you wish. Or you can just pretend that you can read minds. Either is fine with me.
These three points are all in support of the first statement made.
Obviously.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize he was taken umbrage at the main point and not necessarily the supports of the main point.
If he had specified what he was taking umbrage at, then you could say so. But he didn't. You can flail away all you want, but that is simple fact. His statement was unqualified in that regard.
Not everyone likes to prune and trim every portion of a quote.
If you're going to ***** about technicalities and facts, while calling my opinion bs, then you better be technically correct and use facts to support your case. Otherwise I'm going to point out your hypocrisy.
Winston did not qualify which portions he was referring to as "a load of BS". He was also *****ing about (his incorrect understanding of) semantics. So analyzing his own statement semantically is rather just. And quite topical for the thread even.
For someone arguing for "an eye for an eye" you should be able to appreciate such a response. But your partisanship blinds you as usual.
He isolated a paragraph that including a main point and 3 supports and you take that to mean that his BS applies to the 3 supporting sentences rather than the main premise?!
No. You obviously fail to understand such a simple point.
In lieu of qualification, the claim of "load of BS" applies to everything he was quoting.
Is a bit of common sense too much to ask from you?
Your "sense" is rather "common".
A) What words is he putting in your mouth?
He was saying my opinion, which sounded like an opinion (amazingly enough since it was my opinion) was actually me presenting facts that aren't facts (since I offered no facts, just my opinion).
That is "putting words in my mouth". It's doing so in an awesome, self-refuting, idiotic sort of way. Too bad you're too partisan to enjoy it properly, it really is hilarious.
B) Hiding behind an "if" is pretty cheeky.
It's meant to be cheeky you dimwit. I was mocking his ludicrous refutation of himself and his unqualified and unsupportable statement. I've already explained this.
We all know what you were attempting to do.
You obviously don't. But thanks for disregarding what I've actually expressed as my intent and pretending you know better.
Kinda like "putting words in my mouth". Only... "putting intentions in my mind". You are such an intellectually dishonest hypocrite.
You wanted to change the goalposts from "Raping a child likely inflicts more harm on them" to "sexual molestation does not affect a child's psyche" in a pretty damned transparent way.
No, I wanted to make fun of Winston, and show the fault of his statement. Sorry that it went over your head. Maybe if you weren't huddled over your crystal ball trying to read my mind it wouldn't happen.
I still stand my by reasoning that "raping a child likely inflicts more harm on them". I have since given further justifications from my experience for it. I have not backed away from that statement as you so fallaciously claim.
You are an idiot to think that I'm trying to change goalposts when the goalposts are still there, and have been re-iterated. Mindreading is one thing, but mindreading and coming to conclusions which are demonstratably false is completely awesome self-pwnage. You and Winston really are quite the pair in this thread.
In lieu of qualification, the claim of "load of BS" applies to everything he was quoting.
So you want to be a semantical ******* even though its quite obvious what he was referring to.
Hooray for you.
You obviously don't. But thanks for disregarding what I've actually expressed as my intent and pretending you know better.
Like 48'' pizzas. You and Oerdin should talk. When are you going to say this was all a troll?
"I'd love to hear your "facts", *****."
Yep... that reaaally sounds like mocking.
You are an idiot to think that I'm trying to change goalposts when the goalposts are still there, and have been re-iterated.
Let's see Winston's obvious bone of contention was that raping a child inflicts more harm than killing them. Yet, you changed that to make an assumption (oh wait, you put "if", so its ok...) that he was attempting to say "sexual molestation does not affect a child's psyche". Because after all, as you yourself said: "In lieu of qualification, the claim of "load of BS" applies to everything he was quoting." Regardless of how utter ridiculous that sounds.
Are you guys having fun? You waste your time.
Indeed, as anyone who enters into "debate" with Aeson (and as we all know its only a matter of time, sooner, rather than later, when he brings out the personal attacks, because we all know they usually indicate victory in internet debates ). I can only assume the 48'' pizza is making an appearance sooner rather than later, though.
“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)
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So you want to be a semantical ******* even though its quite obvious what he was referring to.
No, it wasn't obvious. That's the semantic point. But thanks for "trying to put words in my mouth" again
When are you going to say this was all a troll?
Never. I don't think I've ever said a conversation I've had is a troll in fact. But thanks for "trying to put words in my mouth" again
Let's see Winston's obvious bone of contention was that raping a child inflicts more harm than killing them.
He didn't qualify his statement. It's amazing how utterly foolish you are making yourself look trying to pretend that he did qualify his statement in such a way to make it obvious what he was calling "a load of BS".
Yet, you changed that to make an assumption (oh wait, you put "if", so its ok...) that he was attempting to say "sexual molestation does not affect a child's psyche".
I wasn't assuming anything. But thanks for "trying to put words in my mouth" again
Because after all, as you yourself said: "In lieu of qualification, the claim of "load of BS" applies to everything he was quoting." Regardless of how utter ridiculous that sounds.
Your "because" makes no sense at all. Try again. It does not follow that by saying the "load of BS" applies to the entire quote, that I was changing it to make an assumption about anything.
What world is the logic you're using from? Are you drunk or something?
Indeed, as anyone who enters into "debate" with Aeson (and as we all know its only a matter of time, sooner, rather than later, when he brings out the personal attacks, because we all know they usually indicate victory in internet debates ).
I've had plenty of congenial debates with people on these boards. The majority in fact. Of course those don't support your attempted "point", so you conveniently pretend they don't exist.
I prefer to let people decide the tone of the debate. Then we go from there. I'm up for anything...
You start off calling my opinion a load of BS though, not even bothering to give any reasoning to support your claim, you get this.
I can only assume the 48'' pizza is making an appearance sooner rather than later, though.
More "putting words in my mouth" and mindreading crap from the intellectually dishonest hypocrite. Thanks for working so hard to prove my point.
I am all in favor of killing 19 year olds who sleep with 17 year olds.
I'm consitently stupid- Japher I think that opinion in the United States is decidedly different from the rest of the world because we have a free press -- by free, I mean a virgorously presented right wing point of view on the air and available to all.- Ned
He was obviously trying to read something into my statements that wasn't there, trying to address them as if they were offered as facts, when even he admitted it sounded like an opinion, before "refuting" himself. So why should he be afforded the consideration of "what he really meant" when he's already set the tone in that regard? I was just responding to him according to the rules he had already set.
Tweet
Comment