Don't be sorry - you make a good point, which pretty much sums up part of what I was going for, in my admittedly slightly more tangential or obtuse manner.

It's like calling a lion "evil" because it killed the gazelle - the gazelle may think he's evil, but the lion just thinks he's getting a snack.

yes, very good example, comrade! :)

Since when is comparing animals to humans relevant point of discussing human to human relations or actions the humans do. You sound like one of the liberals who use the exact same mantra to explain their unnatural ways: "Oh, there are some animals who have gay sex. Therefore it is a natural thing." "Oh, the abortion is human right, and is a natural thing, because there are some female animals who kill and eat their children."

At this point I see you are trying too hard to sound like Jordan Peterson wannabe, or even Stefan Molyneux. You are overdoing it, and it doesn't make you sound convincing, nor that smart. I do not mean this as an offence. I follow those two I mentioned, so I know which debates they can win easily, and which ones they can't. They easily win debates against the leftists regarding any topic, because, let's get real, who is an "intellectual" from the left that can't be beaten in a debate. The left doesn't have intelligent people to begin with, nor intelligent arguments regarding most of their policies, activism, nor causes they fight for. Even when they have good intentions regarding valid and justified causes, they do them for the wrong reasons. Whenever those two (Jordan and Stefan) debate the right wing people, that is where the cognitive dissonance begins. The same goes for the Owen Shroyer. So does your argument regarding lions and gazelles.

Since human brain is highly advanced and it provides us with intelligence far superior to animal intelligence, humans are to be held accountable for their actions. That is why why we live in organized societies with countries that have laws. Otherwise, had the world been according to your relativist moral views, we would have Mad Max post-apocalyptic wasteland, with situations in society where people would not be sent to jail for killing, or stealing, or raping, or committing various organized frauds, or forced prostitution, because, according to your views, it was a justified and valid thing to do from their perspective, and their point of view. They have justified reasons for committing such acts. This is also a reason why minors can't be sent to jail, as their brain is not developed as the brain of the adults, thus can't be held accountable for their actions. Another reason why there is the age of consent law, and why adults take legal responsibility for the actions of their minor children.

Look, you don't need to put 'evil' in the title, it goes with the territory.

Yes, rules exist so we don't destroy ourselves - you are definitely correct in that if everyone acted like Machiavelli, we'd be screwed.

Indeed, the stuff Machiavelli mentions - or indeed any kind of manipulation, especially when this involves effectively ignoring society's rules - only works because the majority follow the rules. Otherwise we'd have an anarchic free-for-all Mad Max style for sure.

However, that doesn't make any of it invalid - people in power have known this for a long time.

My point was, that from their point of view, morals are irrelevant - it's the results that count. One of the core aspects of doing things that society would normally condemn is image, or perception - so you're only considered immoral if people realise you've actually done these things. Or put another way, "it's only illegal if you're caught".

People are very quick to condemn the actions of someone when they're caught doing something "bad" - the key word here being "caught". If the person is never caught, and on the contrary has the appearance of doing everything they do for the greater good, people won't care.


As for gay sex and abortion - honestly I have no idea why people are against these things. I have no problem with gays - I may not be into it myself, but as long as all the people involved are consenting adults, they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. I don't understand why this should be an issue. Of course if I see two guys making out in public I should have a right to make some kind of comment - because that's a natural reaction to seeing something that's considered outside the "norm".

And yes, from a biological point of view - there are animals that "go gay" if males vastly outnumber females (for example), or as an alternative to getting really aggressive and fighting among themselves. It wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that homosexuality is merely something that may tend to occur as part of some species-wide population control mechanism, and I would therefore expect it to increase as population density increases (I definitely cannot explain how this is triggered though, and I admit I cannot back this theory up in any way). In that way, it would work in concert with people making conscious decisions not to reproduce, and official policies such as China's "One Child Policy".

Same with abortion - if a woman has something growing inside her, and it's not yet matured, she should be able to get rid of it. At least this way is more palatable to people than removing it after it's born (personally this should also be an option, e.g. if the child is retarded or grotesquely mutated (if it cannot be fixed by science/medicine) - but not because of gender like some retarded cultures since that messes up the balance in society).

There was a study done in Romania (read it in one of the "Freakonomics" books - definitely worth a read as they analyse things different to the "mainstream"), that suggested an extremely strong correlation between abortion being made illegal in that country, and the massive increase in the crime rate in that country around 20 years later. Naturally, correlation doesn't equal causation - but it does make sense that if someone is forced to give birth to a child that they don't want or are not capable of looking after, that the child in question will almost certainly turn out to be a negative influence on society in one way or another. Additionally, making abortion illegal always leads to an increase in illegal abortions (and related deaths). We have enough people in the world already, we're not in any danger of dying out due to low birth rates - if anything will hasten our demise, it's over-population, let alone over-population where a significant chunk of the people are criminals due to being unwanted from birth.

You make good points, which can - will - be tripped by your second, unecessary, paragraph. Therefore, fixed.
Or as a result. Some fights CAN get pretty heated.

I played one game of this over the weekend, start to end (Beginner difficulty) and had a good time. Well, two if you count the one I went insolvent very early on. It is definitely a "grand strategy" game that's more accessible than the Paradox ones.

I ended around turn 162 (winning), but I'd say the game was pretty much decided by around 100. That's likely because I was only on beginner though.

There are a few mechanics I still don't quite get (the three "invest" buttons in espionage being the main one; NOT the investments sub-button).

The tutorial definitely does need to go over the "quests" in the bottom left. I had no idea about it. I thought it was just random checkbox for "completed tutorial".

I'll play again. I look forward to what the dev has down the road. This is a good base. Thanks for posting here! (PS: A manual may be easier than an in-game tutorial.)

Let's put your broad, apologist theory concept into practice. By your relativist morals definition, what happened in New Zealand few days ago was just casual stuff. Right. See? It doesn't work that way.

All of this generalizing, broad definitions, European Union-esque bureaucracy, quasi-intellectual phrases mean nothing when you put the above example into your practice.

Another broad, flat, pacifistic approach to view the world. More like: "Don't ask me, I am waiting for TV to shape my world view." What is trending on Twitter and Facebook nowadays. 76 genders? Cool stuff. Tell me more about it.

When trying to rationalise something that is deviant, or irrational, the escapist solution is to compare humans to animals. Comparing humans to animals is dehumanising in this context. Why humans cure cancer, why bothering, they are fine. A bit different than others, but they are no less human than the rest of us. Let's stop the stigma regarding the cancer. Cancer should not be treated, as long as we have a consensual, adult individual involved, willing to be accepted as such. Treating cancer is the stuff from the old world. Welcome to the Libbie Land, the land of the progressive and smart.

There is no such thing as overpopulation. It is one more media paranoia, besides the global warming, to drive more people nuts, and keep them distracted from what is going to come, regarding the Third Temple prophecy. 7 billion people can fit the entire territory of Australia, and you'd still get less population density than currently Singapore. There is a global warming, it is called Spring and Summer. They are part of the four seasons.

Labelling baby embryo "something that should be removed" is dehumanizing. Extreme apologetic exaggerations like "baby born out of rape", or this new one you got right here "if the baby is grotesquely mutated", happen more often in pro-murder debates, rather than in real life. Extremely rare cases of such babies can not be used to justify the murder of the children.

Less humans policy is what you stand for. More deaths from illegal abortion sounds like perfect solution fitting in the point of view the media has arranged for you. Illegal abortions are still murder, just like the legal abortions. The end result will be death. People need to take responsibility for their actions, so they do not have to go through situations where they are willing to murder their babies for selfish and/or immature reasons. Responsibility is the trait of the adult people. It sounds like a strange concept in the Libbie Land. “Uh, responsibilities? Yikes, who needs that. We need more of the rights rather than responsibilities. Responsibilities are out of fashion. Self-centrism, self-culture and egomania is what matters nowadays. You have got one life to live. Live it to the fullest, screw the rest. You are the most important one in this world.” Sweet lies sound the best, right. Tell them more what they want to hear, good old judeo-liberal media.

My main point - re morals - is that the most powerful don't obey the rules that the rest of us are expected to follow (and obviously, they don't get caught and/or change people's perception sufficiently so they're not even suspected). Hence the reason they achieve (and maintain) their power.

Since you bring up NZ - I can't speak to that one, since we don't have all the information yet (and may never get it all) - but often situations such as these are orchestrated by someone in the shadows. Example: Bin Laden and 9/11. Not quite the example I was heading towards, but it can be made to fit: terror attacks orchestrated by Bin Laden increased his "public image" in certain parts of the world, raising his profile; this in turn led to increased recruitment for Al Qaida. Naturally I despise terrorists as the filthy cowards they are - not just because of the death and destruction, but also (and most importantly) because of the reduction of our civil liberties by our own Governments with the excuse of "safety".

Going back to NZ, the Government there wasted little time to take advantage of the situation - it took them less than a week to outlaw a range of firearms which had previously been legal. With no contest. One week is an incredibly short time-frame to achieve the passage of legislation in a system such as NZs,


As for your other points - just because you think something is "deviant" or "irrational" doesn't make it so. Humans ARE animals - yes we have "intelligence" and all that, but most humans are easily manipulated. The fact that you think there is "no such thing as overpopulation" shows that you are either taking cues from media that aligns with how you think, or you just haven't looked into the situation at all. It's not just about population density - if it were there wouldn't be a problem (except personally I'd rather not live like a sardine).

That's not "an escapist solution" - it is a fact that humans are technically animals. The most populous animals on the planet. And yes I do tend to rate humans higher than animals, but only because I am selfish - i.e. I am a human (and I'm not a PETA member - those guys are basically terrorists).

I honestly don't know why you care about people making up new genders. Personally I don't understand it either (technically there are only two genders, unless one counts hermaphrodites as separate - and they are quite rare) - but if people want to label themselves as something different then what do I care? As long as it doesn't affect me directly, I don't care what they do. Now if they want special priveleges for these new genders, that's where the problems lie.

Global warming is, most likely, real - the thing is, estimates vary ridiculously as to what the end effect will ultimately be. The bigger issue is that people think that "we should do something about it" - the fact is that, speaking for Australia specifically, we contribute < 1% total global emissions, so even if we destroyed our entire economy/country/population, it would make almost no difference globally or locally. Yet the Green idiots on the left here want us to effectively revert to the stone age, and many idiots somehow think that if we do something, then other countries will follow suit. Which is hilarious, since I'm pretty sure no other country in the world is going to base their decisions on what we in Australia do.

As for the embryo stuff - firstly, until they're born, they don't have higher brain functions, therefore they don't count as human, therefore they're the property of the mother while they carry them, therefore the mother should be able to do with it what she wants to.

As for "dehumanising" - cry me a river. Far worse "crimes" have been committed throughout history, and most of the time there wasn't even a noble goal behind it. Removing unwanted children prior to their birth is a good thing, as it has been shown that bringing unwanted children into the world (and then abandoning them to an orphanage or something, which is usually what happens) leads to a spike in criminal activity, which is bad for society in general.

I do agree that people need to take more responsibility for things - and bringing children into the world where they're not wanted (or the parent cannot take care of them, due to financial or other issues) is definitely irresponsible. Ideally people should need to obtain a license to have/raise children, judging by the vast amount of morons that are raising children (who will then turn out to be even more, vastly entitled, morons).

For that matter, people that are useless or incompetent at their jobs should be removed from society, instead of festering in public service jobs where they cannot be fired, and where they cluster together with other idiots, creating a cabal of idiocy that grows larger with each generation, where idiots support other idiots in a never-ending circle of utter stupidity.

And that's the last time I will derail this thread. Apologies for anyone reading this and wondering WTF if going on.

Just as I assumed. Some more dodging, twisting and turning when faced with blunt examples, which challenge your points. Now you switch to talk about the New Zeland's government. That was not the point, and you know that. The justification for such act, from the perspective of the Brenton Tarrant is easily justified by your statement. The rest of the stuff you wrote is precisely inaccurate and inconsistent, but I will not go deeper into that, since I have already made my points.

I bought the game by adding my monetary support to this interesting game and I join those who would like to see the achievements implemented, I hope it will help you make the right decision!

You have totally missed my point. Again.

Happy to debate you on a more appropriate forum, as opposed to hijacking threads such as this.

It is often better to question and re-evaluate your own beliefs, rather than acting mad, because your views show flaws when confronted with real-life examples. Theorycrafting is good, but more often than not a theory and the practical implementation of the very same theory don't match. Unfortunately what you are typing is the well-known mainstream narrative, coming from the current judeo-liberal politics, distributed by social media and fake news outlets. Also, you are not obliged to reply to every single comment.