Capto Iugulum Background Thread

[Symphony D.]

As such the Germans had to invade Norway to get the deuterium, but the mistakes made in the mathematical calculations meant that their experiments weren't working properly and the program was scrapped.

This is not wholly accurate. Heavy water works well enough, Germany simply didn't have enough time or materiel to produce a working bomb faster than the Allies, or faster than their fronts were collapsing.

You can justify not including nukes for gameplay reasons. That's fine. Those gameplay reasons however have no basis in reality, and trying to use reality to justify it just makes one look incredibly foolish to people who know any better.

 

[Jehoshua]

Just like the Moon Landing was a hoax and everyone with a sufficiently high powered telescope, including the Soviet Union, went along with it and does to this day, right? Buy a strong enough set of optics and you'll get your invitation to the conspiracy and special access to the clubhouse where you can chill with JFK, Elvis, and Tupac.

I suppose your cultural paradigm and tragic life experience forces you to be arrogant and vulgar. That, or perhaps its just that you're inherently due to your intrinsic psychological nature, or due some biological aberration, unable to comprehent the principles of politeness and respect, right?

I would hope you get my point, although since it might be pre-determined that your an incomprehending dunce, in order that there be no confusion let it be known that Im suggesting you take a shot at being civil when discussing things with other people who are arguing for a point you personally disagree with.

You can talk about free will all you want, and I will counter with mob mentality. Governments, organizations, and corporations aren't people, they're short-sighted, interest-driven conglomerations usually focused on their own survival and supremacy, because until extremely recently in Human history, success was predicated on hierarchy, not on networking. Your suggestion is one in which an entire professional body or organization elects to effectively handicap itself against the competition. In a zero-sum game, that is tantamount to suicide.

You then go on to posit that everyone will elect to suicide out of some moral obligation or whatever. The simple fact is they won't, due to your own free will argument. The only reason the Cult of Pythagoras was moderately successful at keeping his work secret was because they went around murdering everyone they could find who independently rediscovered it. Someone will always make the choice you won't, eventually. This is why the military industrial complexes of the 20th century pursued every avenue of weapons research: fear that if they didn't, the other side would. I don't think I need to emphasize how competitive CI's world is.

People do not work the way you are describing. They never have. They never will. You can declare this is simply the way things are, but then you're declaring that the game does not involve anything like Humans as they actually exist.

Corporate institutions are, like it or not, groups of people. They are not independent apart from the people who together make up that institution. You are correct of course that such coglomerations tend to act in their own interest, but thats because people by their nature act in that manner, and choose the path of self-benefit and maximum security. They tend to act in a individualistic rationality. This does not however negate choice and free will, but rather is merely a statement on how that freedom is generally exercised most of the time (something I indeed implicitly stated when I pointed out that nukes and so forth are incredibly likely in most potential instances to come to pass). People most often choose to do what is in their narrow self interest, but they are not bound by any fate or causality to do that.

Also, yes, scientific progress is relatively deterministic. You know why? Because the fundamental physical facts of the universe are determined. There is some uncertainty in the particulars but certain outcomes, given certain preconditions, are overwhelmingly likely. Welcome to the quantum world. You know, the one that would've inevitably been discovered.

Scientific progress is deterministic in the sense that the natural order is fixed and knowable yes. However whether some aspect of that order is manifested in some piece of technology is entirely dependant on human agency.

Anyways, to proceed, my whole point is that what occurs in the "real world" or the likely trajectory of technological development that in most instances will occur is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Capto Iugulum should have nuclear weapons at a time analogous to the real world development of the same technology. Since there is even one possibility out of a billion that men choose not to develop immediately or at all that technology, even if they understand the principles as they almost certainly would or pursue civil nuclear power, then if the GM wants that for whatever reason than there is no reason to get in a rabid sperge about it. Ergo if EQ wants delayed or no nukes for whatever reason, if there is even one possibile scenario that such an outcome could occur then there is no reason why he cannot choose (that free will thing again) to implement such a thing in what is ultimately his game (which he benevolently maintains for your enjoyment).

 

[Symphony D.]

No need for you to be rude and vulgar. Although I suppose your cultural paradigm forces you to be arrogant. That or its just that your inherently due to your intrinsic nature unable to comprehent the principles of politeness and respect, right?

I wasn't being disrespectful. Being disrespectful would be calling you a fool for not being able to see the applicability of the Prisoner's Dilemma to a question of international relations when you are a self-proclaimed student of international relations.

Corporate institutions are, like it or not, groups of people. They are not independent apart from the people who together make up that institution.

Yes, indeed, organizations of people have never demonstrated groupthink or pathological hivemind tendencies that diverge wildly from their constituent parts. Like how the US has not passed tighter gun control legislation despite approximately 90% of the population favoring it.

They tend to act in a individualistic rationality. [...] People most often choose to do what is in their narrow self interest, but they are not bound by any fate or causality to do that.

Hahahahaha, no.

Scientific progress is deterministic in the sense that the natural order is fixed and knowable yes. However whether some aspect of that order is manifested in some piece of technology is entirely dependant on human agency.

People in aggregate are predictable, even if individuals are not.

Anyways, to proceed, my whole point is that what occurs in the "real world" or the likely trajectory of technological development that in most instances will occur is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Capto Iugulum should have nuclear weapons at a time analogous to the real world development of the same technology.

It is of the utmost bearing when you are trying to use the real world to justify your suppositions.

then if the GM wants that for whatever reason than there is no reason to get in a rabid sperge about it.

Tsk tsk, someone's being a hypocrite. Naughty naughty.

Ergo if EQ wants delayed or no nukes for whatever reason, if there is even one possibile scenario that such an outcome could occur then there is no reason why he cannot choose (that free will thing again) to implement such a thing in what is ultimately his game

In the same way that there is an infinitesimally small probability that you could spontaneously teleport to the Andromeda Galaxy, sure. As I said, he can do whatever he wants. I just don't want the real world twisted in the pursuit of it. If you want fantasy, call it fantasy, don't try and pass it off as something else.

(which he benevolently maintains for your enjoyment).

I don't play this game. I derive no enjoyment from it except in watching people do objectively and subjectively foolish things. I can get that anywhere. What I am attempting to do right now is dissuade you (collectively) of one such thing.

 

[Jehoshua]

I wasn't being disrespectful. Being disrespectful would be calling you a fool for not being able to see the applicability of the Prisoner's Dilemma to a question of international relations when you are a self-proclaimed student of international relations.

In your opinion. Anyways, as I noted, I fully accept that people most often will go down a particular path, afterall the security dillemma (rosseau's stag hunt) you describe tends to lead people down a self-interested path. Im simply stating that institutions and people always have the choice not to engage in a certain action. The prisoner still has the choice to snitch on his compadre, or not to snitch.

Yes, indeed, organizations of people have never demonstrated groupthink or pathological hivemind tendencies that diverge wildly from their constituent parts. Like how the US has not passed tighter gun control legislation despite approximately 90% of the population favoring it.

Save the US government is not composed of the broader population

People in aggregate are predictable, even if individuals are not.

Im not saying they aren't, Im saying that its not inevitable that a certain outcome will come to pass in any given instance within a social paradigm or as a product of collective agency.

It is of the utmost bearing when you are trying to use the real world to justify your suppositions.

only if I presume to use historical precedent. Since im arguing on a more theoretical basis of choice, agency and the like what has happened IRL is entirely irrelevant.

In the same way that there is an infinitesimally small probability that you could spontaneously teleport to the Andromeda Galaxy, sure. As I said, he can do whatever he wants. I just don't want the real world twisted in the pursuit of it. If you want fantasy, call it fantasy, don't try and pass it off as something else.

Save there is a qualitative difference between spontaneous teleportation and historical probability. Namely one is bound by the natural order and another is dependant on free agency and its possible manifestations.

 

[Symphony D.]

Save there is a qualitative difference between spontaneous teleportation and historical probability. Namely one is bound by the natural order and another is dependant on free agency and its possible manifestations.

No, there really isn't. The human brain is a mechanism made of chemicals and electricity. It is ultimately governed by quantum physics in the same way that the probability function of a given particle is. You aren't deterministic, but you're probabilistic. Thus so is everything you do. Determining the probability of you doing something isn't feasible for numerous technical reasons, but it remains technically possible. There is much work in relating quantum effects to macroscale concerns.

So sure, it's possible that one day everyone of importance could wake up and agree that banning all WMDs forever was a brilliant decision, and that no one would ever go on to question this ever again, or that any such persons would be promptly killed before getting anywhere with it, forever and ever. That is certainly statistically possible. The quantity and duration of the particles involved, containing as it does all the Human individuals at the time and to exist for a reasonable period there after, makes this outcome far less likely than you quantum tunneling to Andromeda.

In the same fashion, it's theoretically possible that a white hole, should such an object even exist, could spit out a fully formed and functional CRT television. I would not encourage you to wait around for such a circumstance in the event you found one.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Now, I'm going to reiterate, I never said there would definitely be no nuclear weapons in CI, nor did I say if I'd want them or not. I actually have put a lot of work into the mechanics of a nuclear armed world and even more into the aftermath of a nuclear war. Most of this was for ABNW, though crezth failed to use nukes in a timely manner there. I've just always thought that the idea of a timeline without nuclear weapons was interesting, and the conversation which has followed is pretty much what I was hoping to achieve.

Now, I'm known to make choices, such as my "NEIN ZEPPELIN" attitude in this NES, predominantly for the greater good of the NES story. With that particular example, I did quite a bit of research to justify my decision, and realistically there's no reason that something like zeppelins could be inevitable. Now I agree with Symphony D that WMDs are inevitable, especially for desperate nations who have nothing to lose. CI has actually fairly widespread chemical programs and use, and I believe at this point (though I am at work and without notes) sarin gas is actually available to a number of nations at this stage. I'm sure elaborate other weapons along those lines would be developed if nuclear weapons are evaded.

 

[Immaculate]

Sorry if this was already discussed - i don't - in all honesty- read every single post in this thread- but is there any sort of counter-movement to the Catholic church that embraces proletariat or socialist ideology and if so, where can i read about it? Also, is there a Christian humanist organization?

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

I do not believe we have any "official" counter movement, though there are certainly a substantial number of opposition movements in nations where the Church has an increased presence. Some nations, such as Brazil or Uruguay, have simply begun integrating Church rhetoric into varying levels of ideology, including proletarism and liberalism in order to appeal to the rhetoric. Other nations of course have more violent proletarist types who are increasingly diametrically opposed to organized religion, primarily in Protestant nations.

 

[Jehoshua]

Catholic movements (Traditionalism, Moralism and various Conservative Parties with a Catholic emphasis) have emerged spontaneously from the Church's own strong opposition to proletarism and liberalism. So I suppose really the movements of which you speak are more accurately described as the opposition to those ideologies rather than as the thing opposed so much. Inasmuch however as they have emerged to oppose liberalism and proletarism, those ideologies then become the opposition where they are strong.

As to religious opposition. Well protestant societes have tended to run full bore into godlessness (a legacy perhaps of protestantisms rejection of authority in favour of "personal interpretation") and so I suppose any religious opposition would simply adopt aspects of liberalism or proleism. Either way, the trend Im noticing is an increasing marginalisation and weakening of protestantism in many nations in favour of secular thought, whereas the Catholic Church has ferociously fought back against the secularising trend (as it did not IRL I note) and as a consequence the faith of the Church has strengthened quite significantly. The outcome of this has yet to be fully realised, and I would say it can't be generalised since Argentina for example would likely have a different result from the shift in the religious "balance of power" to say Scandinavia.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Worth pointing out that the Revolution as it is understood in Scandinavia is in no way anti or a-religious. Scandinavian Lutherans have overwhelmingly adopted proletarism into Christianity vis a vis "Revolution theology". Jesus was the first proletarist.

 

[Jehoshua]

Ergo, Scandinavia has seen the subsumation of the protestant religion into the prevailing secular thought, which has simultaneously marginalised lutheranism in society in favour of proleism, and made lutheranism irrelevant because by bowing to the altar of proletarism, the lutheran church has removed itself as a distinct voice in the "philosophical conversation" of Scandinavia and lost its distinction from the secular culture.

This is pretty much a trajectory towards atheism as well, since wherever you find that the religion has bowed to the secular culture, and lost its distinction, that religion has seen itself decline, precipitously and dramatically. IRL for example, the Episcopal Church in America has bowed to the altar of social liberalism, and seen itself die, and so on with many of the protestant national churches in Europe (Catholicism now has a larger Church attendance than Anglicanism in England). In certain places where the local hierarchy has refrained from proclaiming unflinchingly Catholic teaching the Catholic Church has also declined even if it has been less pronounced even in those places. When a religion chooses to follow the secular trends of the age and changes its doctrine to suit the fashions of the day, it finds itself a widow in the next age and in a state of utter desolation and ruin.

 

[spryllino]

Catholicism in England is only doing well in such terms because of large numbers of immigrants from Catholic countries; in terms of the native population, both churches, at least round where I live, have almost no young people except for those of ethnic minorities, and probably are about equally well attended by older people not of ethnic minorities. And if the Anglican churches went all rightist on us, then I reckon all the lefties would stop going. (I base this on what I see as one of the church organists in both of these churches in my home town.)

I submit that any greater success Catholicism has compared to Anglicanism here in England is nothing to do with doctrine whatsoever.

 

[karikon]

Can Dominions negotiate there own tariff ?

 

[Lord of Elves]

@Jehoshua, I think you are taking an unnecessarily dogmatic/vehemently moralist (by which I mean OTL moralism) view of religion/politics. There is no reason why secular authority has to be an enemy of religious authority, as any theocratic state can evince. Furthermore I think you are viewing the development of Revolution theology in CI through a dogmatic lens and applying conditions and variables that do not exist in Scandinavia. The Revolution has if anything empowered religious authority in Scandinavia due to the prior rejection of religious authority and doctrine during the imperial era, where the doom-saying and proselytizing of the more dramatic Lutheran elements in Scandinavia society was considered out of touch and hamfisted. Prior to the Revolution the only attention Lutherans got from the state was the use of abuse of Lutheran missionaries as an excuse to extend colonial powers/further back, colonies.

Now that there is an omnipresent enemy against which to proselytize and preach Lutherans are taken far more seriously, if only because Lutheran pamphleteers and authors have been instrumental in establishing the culture of Revolution theology and much of the ideological language and bent of Scandinavian proletarism.

 

[Jehoshua]

@Jehoshua, I think you are taking an unnecessarily dogmatic/vehemently moralist (by which I mean OTL moralism) view of religion/politics. There is no reason why secular authority has to be an enemy of religious authority, as any theocratic state can evince. Furthermore I think you are viewing the development of Revolution theology in CI through a dogmatic lens and applying conditions and variables that do not exist in Scandinavia. The Revolution has if anything empowered religious authority in Scandinavia due to the prior rejection of religious authority and doctrine during the imperial era, where the doom-saying and proselytizing of the more dramatic Lutheran elements in Scandinavia society was considered out of touch and hamfisted. Prior to the Revolution the only attention Lutherans got from the state was the use of abuse of Lutheran missionaries as an excuse to extend colonial powers/further back, colonies.

Now that there is an omnipresent enemy against which to proselytize and preach Lutherans are taken far more seriously, if only because Lutheran pamphleteers and authors have been instrumental in establishing the culture of Revolution theology and much of the ideological language and bent of Scandinavian proletarism.

Firstly to address Spyrillino, when Catholicism forms 9% of the population, and anglicanism 50% or so, and yet the 9% group has more churhgoers that is a significant difference. It doesn't mean the Catholic Church is healthy and thriving in England (I well know its not save in isolated areas), but it does mean its relatively more resilient to the secular culture than anglicanism. I could use other examples like the Netherlands for example, where Catholicism is now the largest religion overtaking the previously dominant protestantism to reaffirm that point.

-

As to Lord of Elves. Im not saying secular authority is the enemy of religion, Im saying that when a religion adopts a secular philosophy, and loses its distinction and identity to the secular culture it inevitably is on the road to decline. Afterall if the lutheran ecclesial community has nothing distinct to say apart from the proletarist party, if its moral teaching changes with popular opinion, when the situation in the culture changes (or even drags on) that community will, precedent informs OTL, decline. Afterall once the next generation comes along, why would they remain in the lutheran church if it is practically indistinguishable from everyone else in what it says? You see this in practically all liberal religion today as Spyrillino's statement actually indicates, the original generation thinks its cool and good, and have an attachment to the Church, but the generations after, finding nothing different from what they can get elsewhere simply don't bother. Tis for this reason to go on an aside, that young Catholics usually tend to actually be much more conservative than older ones, since "liberal catholicism" doesn't reproduce itself. The same seems to me to apply to protestantism, if you compare evangelicalism to the mainline protestant sects in the US or Australia. But obviously I can't speak from personal experience and observation there

 

[Masada]

I could use other examples like the Netherlands for example, where Catholicism is now the largest religion overtaking the previously dominant protestantism to reaffirm that point.

Yep, a halving of Catholicism's share of the population between 1970 (40.5 per cent or 5.3 million) and 2008 (25.9 per cent or 4.3 million) is something the hierarchy should really be cheering about! It gets worse if we look at actual Church attendance which have declined from 385 675 in 2003 to 248 700 in 2011, a 35.5 per cent decline in attendance in less than a decade. In actual fact if we look at this report we can see that while the Protestant Churches were smaller in absolute terms (1.8 million) than the Catholic Church (4.2 million), the Protestants had more "zondagse kerkgangers" (Sunday Churchgoers) at 396 000 than the Catholic Church 288 100. This suggests that people (for whatever reason) still attach significance to a Catholic identity even if they have zero intention of participating in organised Catholic worship. You get much the same thing in Ireland, the United States and Australia where Catholicism looks good in the Census until one looks at the actual number of people who are attending Church. I've heard demographers call this the "Irish effect" wherein people of Irish extraction identify as Catholics in the Census because Irish identity is closely associated with Catholicism. The catch is that a lot of these Census Catholics never attend Church. You get the same effect with Poles and Scots Irish, the identities of both of which are strongly associated with Catholicism.

 

[Jehoshua]

Im not saying the situation is good, its not. You would have to an idiot to say otherwise, and indeed I noted liberal Catholicism has the same problem as mainline protestantism with regards to "Sudden Religious Death Syndrome".

What Im saying however is that Catholicism on a broader scale, even in those unfortunate places where the bishops have effectively sold out the faith, is more resistant compared to IRL mainline protestantism to the trend towards secularisation because it doesn't change its dogma with the times. Thus more people remain a modicum of faith despite failure to practice as you noticed even in the places where liberalism has most devastated the faith (German Lands, France, Netherlands, Britain, Australasia and others), and usually (the situation in the Netherlands is particularly bad, so Im not surprised if the attendance is lower even if more people identify, although I suppose it could be a result of a greater number of non-practicing protestants simply going over to outright irreligion leaving a greater proportion of churchgoers) the attendance is higher. As I think I noted, over 50% of Church attenders in Australia are Catholic, despite said Catholics forming only 25.3 of the population (around 41% of self-identified christians, here I add also that if you look at the australian censuses, the Catholic proportion has remained relatively constant whereas mainline protestant percentages have been dropping precipitously, this obviously increases protestant relative attendance since its the non-practicing ones that are inclined to tick the irreligion box).


-

Anyways my main point in relation to Capto Iugulum is that bowing to every whim of popular philosophy is suicidal for religion, and lutheranism in Scandinavia has done precisely that and I think it will see the consequences of it in time.

 

[Masada]

Huh? None of what you've said makes sense. The Anglican Church has been declining since 1947 which is long before it became the liberal institution it is today. Moreover, the largest declines occurred in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. For example, the largest decline was between the 1971 and 1976 Censuses (3.0 per cent). The decline between the 2001 and 2006 Census for comparison was only 1.3 per cent (use quickstats). This suggests that the story is rather more complex than the "liberalism = death" narrative you seem to be arguing.

I'm also indifferent to Census religious self-identification as a measure of religious health. If we look at the 'bums in seats approach' we find that while Catholicism accounted for 50.2 per cent of the total number of Church attendees in 2001 (the most recent data I could find). However, if we look past that point-in-time measure the story becomes more complex. Basically, the Catholic Church between 1996 and 2001 lost 13 per cent of its regulars. The Anglican Church by contrast has lost just 2 per cent since 1996 and only 7 per cent since 1991.

 

[spryllino]

Jehoshua, you're ignoring the fact that they're all immigrants. It's got nothing to do with doctrine, just population migration, and therefore it doesn't support your theory. For all I know, your theory might in principle be correct, at least in some places; but your evidence just doesn't support it, at least not in England.

 

[Jehoshua]

The Anglican Communion has bowed to the secular zeitgeist for a long time, as evident when in the thirties it became the first christian institution to end the what was until then universal prohibition on contraception. Im also quite aware of the decline in Catholic attendance in Australia, and here I simply repeat my point that liberal catholicism (the majority) doesn't reproduce itself, as one can see if they compare the diocese of Lincoln in Nebraska (with its 80% attendance) and the average in the less than orthodox Australian Church or in most dioceses in the west.

At any rate, In typical melancholic fashion Im making a hash of trying to explain what I know. I could, like in previous dicussions i've been in, continue clarifying my argument, eventually coming around to a decent attempt at making my point. But it seems to me that this discussion is increasingly being divorced from Capto Iugulum, namely as to the question of whether bowing to proletarism will inevitably hasten secularism in Scandinavia and like realms.

Ergo, considering the question of the comparative declines of anglicanism and Catholicism is completely besides the point Im failing to make (My point is that religion be it Catholic of Protestant declines with bowing to secular philosophy. Immigrants propping up the Catholic Church in England is not the point here, the decline associated with bowing to secularism is. And on immigrants just to address Spyrillino, one could posit that said immigrants go to Church precisely because they are more orthodox, with this supported by the Church's doctrine remaining resistant to secularism as compared to anglicanism, which incidentally is also propped up immigration [from Africa] to a lesser or greater degree, which despite being nominally five times the size in terms of numbers has lower Church attendance, the crucial difference being the anglican church has bowed in its doctrine, the Church, although most of the english clergy have bowed personally, has not). Im just going to leave this discussion at its current point so that this thread can be returned to its appropriate function.