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
Of course, it's easier to be proud of a bill of rights that goes back farther than 1982. With such a short history of protecting freedoms, it's little wonder Canada is fixated on trendy PC bull**** while ignoring the vital and fundamental rights the United States has protected since 1791.
Catching up late but can't miss this chance to troll Asher...
Do you realise Drake that "sexual orientation" isn't even in the 1982 Charter?
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain
I've never heard of anyone "organizing genocides" in America.
It's not a big problem in Canada.
If you actually look at the people convicted under the hate speech law the list is VERY, VERY tiny. There's only one conviction that was never overturned that I know if in Canada's entire history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Keegstra
This is partly why all of the attention focused on the law is histrionic and a bit retarded. Americans read "hate speech law" and assume it simply means you can't make speeches expressing hate. The law is actually very specific and has a very specific intent that is EXTREMELY rarely used.
"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. "
I find myself agreeing with Mr. Ad-Hominem (Drake) on this one. I don't want to see freedom of speech changed in America; it's worked fine.
The restriction in Canada has "worked fine" also. The only difference, in terms of application of this law, is we legally don't allow teachers to behave as follows:
During class, he would describe Jews as a people of profound evil who had "created the Holocaust to gain sympathy". As well, he tested his students in exams on his theories and opinion of Jews.
It's my understanding that his behaviour is perfectly legal in the USA. Which is unfortunate. People can cause harm without physical violence, and your laws do not comprehend this.
And I have a serious problem with the statement of yours I quoted above, Asher.
Virtually every American will. You've been brainwashed since birth with your romantic notion of the never-ending importance of individual rights at the expense of a well-functioning society. It's not unexpected.
You have a violent, hateful country. You guys employ my statement even more often than Canada does, but you do it unofficially by permitting the tyranny of a slight majority with your politicians having the power to choose basic human rights. The only difference between our countries is Canada recognizes human rights and protects them, while America lets hicks vote on them. You can ban gay marriage, but damned if you take away the rights to Americans to incite genocide...that's just tyranny.
"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. "
The restriction in Canada has "worked fine" also. The only difference, in terms of application of this law, is we legally don't allow teachers to behave
as follows:
During class, he would describe Jews as a people of profound evil who had "created the Holocaust to gain sympathy". As well, he tested his students in exams on his theories and opinion of Jews.
It's my understanding that his behaviour is perfectly legal in the USA. Which is unfortunate. People can cause harm without physical violence, and your laws do not comprehend this.
I can almost guarantee you, that while this horrible stuff is legal in our country, the school will most certainly fire him. Or, if they were smart enough to find this out in the hiring process, they would refuse to hire him.
Virtually every American will. You've been brainwashed since birth with your romantic notion of the never-ending importance of individual rights at the expense of a well-functioning society. It's not unexpected.
Dude, you're gay. Think about your statement, "rights of the few . . ." and how that could apply to other groups of people. Hang on tight folks, we're in for a good ride down the slippery slope!
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
I can almost guarantee you, that while this horrible stuff is legal in our country, the school will most certainly fire him. Or, if they were smart enough to find this out in the hiring process, they would refuse to hire him.
Fire a unionized teacher expressing freedom of speech? I'd like to see that legal battle.
Although teachers are regularly fired for being gay in the USA, I hear. Another example of a non-tyrannic society, right?
Dude, you're gay. Think about your statement, "rights of the few . . ." and how that could apply to other groups of people. Hang on tight folks, we're in for a good ride down the slippery slope!
I've pre-demolished this argument long before your train of thought got to the station. Read higher up in this thread.
The slippery slope argument is the most retarded of all because this law in Canada is very old, and since it's come into play Canada's only added more rights to people -- rights which the USA is still far away from adding. "Slippery slope" fearmongering is one of the worst arguments you can make. As someone who argues with the "slippery slope" Christians about gay marriage ("what's next, legalizing pedophilia??"), you really should know better.
"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. "
Fire a unionized teacher expressing freedom of speech? I'd like to see that legal battle.
Although teachers are regularly fired for being gay in the USA, I hear. Another example of a non-tyrannic society, right?
I've pre-demolished this argument long before your train of thought got to the station. Read higher up in this thread.
The slippery slope argument is the most retarded of all because this law in Canada is very old, and since it's come into play Canada's only added more rights to people -- rights which the USA is still far away from adding. "Slippery slope" fearmongering is one of the worst arguments you can make. As someone who argues with the "slippery slope" Christians about gay marriage ("what's next, legalizing pedophilia??"), you really should know better.
If the school can demonstrate that teaching such bigotry is in violation of the school's mission and vision, the legal defense for the bigot would be seriously weakened.
As for the slippery slope - I didn't read the entire thread; I'll have to go back. Most of the time, slippery slope arguments are clearly fallacious, but I thought in this regard, your comment of "rights of few . . ." could certainly be applied with a legitimate, extended argument.
And once gays are granted equal employment rights nationwide (we already have states that do offer such protection for gays) your above statement about blantant firing of gays will no longer hold as strongly.
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
If the school can demonstrate that teaching such bigotry is in violation of the school's mission and vision, the legal defense for the bigot would be seriously weakened.
As for the slippery slope - I didn't read the entire thread; I'll have to go back. Most of the time, slippery slope arguments are clearly fallacious, but I thought in this regard, your comment of "rights of few . . ." could certainly be applied with a legitimate, extended argument.
And once gays are granted equal employment rights nationwide (we already have states that do offer such protection for gays) your above statement about blantant firing of gays will no longer hold as strongly.
This isn't the point, and now you're dealing with hypotheticals with a rather rosy vision for the future.
As this thread has demonstrated, it's impossible to argue with Americans (be they left or right wing) about freedom of speech. You guys can come up with no arguments aside from a knee-jerk "freedom of speech! We must have its!". When asked to dig into reason and rationality for why it should be legal for the teacher to make comments, like those I've quoted, you have nothing aside from "He should be allowed to express his opinion". When I ask "why" again, this always reverts to the slippery slope fallacy: "What's next, political censorship?" America has restrictions of freedom of speech already. It is not an absolute. Just as you can't slander an individual in America, in Canada you can't slander a group of people and incite others to harm or hate them based on untruths.
Can anyone here break out of the land of knee-jerk reactions and provide a coherent response? I think you'll find very little reasonable and rational arguments to explain why somebody should legally be allowed to spread known untruths for the purpose of inciting others to harm a segment of the population, which is all Canada's law protects against. Anyone?
"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. "
It's not necessarily slippery slope reasons as to why freedom to express opinions should be protected, but also the acknowlegement that each individual has no less of a right than someone else to be heard, regardless of how crazy their views are. In some respects it is somewhat of a moral relativism that everyone's opinions are of equal weight in the marketplace of ideas.
“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)
In some respects it is somewhat of a moral relativism that everyone's opinions are of equal weight in the marketplace of ideas.
Ugh. Socialism.
It seems rather unenlightened to ignore that a very small segment of ideas in this world are terrible ones. That 99% of people will agree on. Ideas that provide no benefit to society and whose only purpose is to, in fact, tear it apart.
"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 best you can do is an informal fallacy, then I'll just go ahead and smile and walk away.
"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. "
Virtually every American will. You've been brainwashed since birth with your romantic notion of the never-ending importance of individual rights at the expense of a well-functioning society.
Actually the claim is that individual rights are the basis of a well-functionling society. However, notice that I used the word claim, not belief. Who knows what people really believe. It seems evident that some belief that individual rights are more important than how society functions.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Tweet
Comment