Civ4 shows liberal bias?

[Kolyana]

I wish I still owned my copy of SMAC

 

[Shaihulud]

I wish I have a new computer to play civ4, so I can review all that vile liberal bias and post them on the internet.

 

[Shaihulud]

You can download SMACX if you "cough" search it over the internet.

 

[BasketCase]

A computer game (or anything else) will be biased according to the biases of the authors.

The computer game "Mission Critical", written when CD drives were a fairly new thing for computers, cast the United Nations as the bad guys.

 

[skadistic]

A computer game (or anything else) will be biased according to the biases of the authors.

The computer game "Mission Critical", written when CD drives were a fairly new thing for computers, cast the United Nations as the bad guys.

But the UN are the bad guys. See oil for food, sudan, rowanda, ect.ect.ect..........

 

[Perfection]

You can download SMACX if you "cough" search it over the internet.

You can also find location where you can purchase it legally

 

[BasketCase]

But the UN are the bad guys. See oil for food, sudan, rowanda, ect.ect.ect..........

"Mission Critical" was a little less friendly than that.....the UN was extremely paranoid of technology--in particular, research into artificial intelligence--and was willing to bomb whole planets out of existence and kill millions of humans to prevent such research from succeeding.

 

[Merzbow]

The Second Amendment reads:


This amendment just ensured the right for states to allow their citizens to carry guns for the militia. I don't know how this has been carried over 200 years from frontier colonies to a modern industrial nation, but somehow I doubt we're going to be invaded by Indians any time soon.

Firearms aren't going to stop a foreign attack of intercontinental missiles, after all; laws do become obsolete. The constitution doesn't give the government the right to maintain an air force either.


A better question is if firearm laws would actually have an impact on crime. The writers discussed the reasoning behind the constitution in many other books and articles, to try and convince the states to ratify the new Constitution over the old Articles of Confederation.

So many misconceptions here I don't know where to begin... the Constitution does not have to 'give' the government the right to form a standing army. The government can do whatever it wants except how it is specifically limited in the Constitution - i.e., it must follow certain rules as to how the President is chosen, and so on. And it can't violate those rights specifically granted to the people and the states (i.e. free speech).

Therefore the 2nd amendment is not there to 'give' the government the right to form an army. It is an INDIVIDUAL right granted to the PEOPLE. The term 'militia' was commonly understood in those days to simply refer to all able-bodied men.

Modern leftism is the strive to 'infantalize' mankind - to shield us all from all the negative consequences of our decisions, in exchange for us giving up our freedom. Economic freedom is already a thing of the past in countries like Sweden, where the tax rate approaches 75%. Social freedom is being lost quickly, with gun rights being taken away, speech codes being instituted (don't blaspheme Islam in Italy or you'll go to jail), and religion being abolished from any institution having anything to do with government (which includes all institutions these days due to the GROWTH of government) in the perverted name of the separation of church and state.

 

[Taliesin]

Economic freedom is already a thing of the past in countries like Sweden, where the tax rate approaches 75%.

This is false. All Swedish citizens pay municipal income tax at a rate of no more than 35%; a person with income above 252 000 kronor (32 000 USD) is taxed at an additional 20%, while a person with income above 390 400 kronor (50 000 USD) is taxed at 25% (these are the bracket figures for 2001). So the upper middle class pays 60% at most, while the average person pays between 26 and 35%. Income from capital or business is taxed at 30%.
http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/BasicFactsheet____3927.aspx

Social freedom is being lost quickly, with gun rights being taken away, speech codes being instituted (don't blaspheme Islam in Italy or you'll go to jail), and religion being abolished from any institution having anything to do with government (which includes all institutions these days due to the GROWTH of government) in the perverted name of the separation of church and state.

I'm not sure what you mean by "gun rights being taken away", unless you're referring to gun control in your own country (which is shockingly lax, anyhow). Gun rights don't exist in other countries, so they can't be taken away. I'm also not sure how removing religious influence from government constitutes a decline in social freedom, exactly.

I don't know what you mean by "modern leftism", either, but if you're referring to social democracy (which, given your hatred of Europe, I assume you are), then its goal is largely to protect people from the negative consequences of other people's decisions, both present and past, and not their own. EDIT: And I should further specify that this is so only insofar as social democracy is a reactive and negative force; obviously it has proactive and positive goals as well, namely the construction and maintenance of an egalitarian society with a high standard of living.

 

[Jawz II]

this thread is hilarious

"in the perverted name of the separation of church and state."

 

[Jawz II]

I can see it now!

Legions of Ted Nugent-type morons in Kansas, burning piles of CIV4 games...
Then being poisoned by a flume of chemical-filled smog from the packaging!

that was the first chuckle you got out of me in awhile

ted nugent types

 

[Truronian]

Social freedom is being lost quickly, with gun rights being taken away,

Or, a person's right not to be shot is being reinstalled

speech codes being instituted (don't blaspheme Islam in Italy or you'll go to jail),

Maybe, but I cannot see any viable reason for someone needing to blaspheme Islam

and religion being abolished from any institution having anything to do with government (which includes all institutions these days due to the GROWTH of government) in the perverted name of the separation of church and state.

Simply saying that this a violation of rights doesn't make it one. Quite the contrary in fact, seperation of church and state is a nessecary step towards freedom of religious choice.

Given your love of freedom, I'm sure your all for freedom of sexual preference (gay equality), the right to life (no capital punishment) and freedom of choice (legality of abortions)?

 

[sirkris]

1. Umm, Dan Quayle, of course. Yeah we all can laugh at him for his obvious Yogi Berrisms, but a far better choice would have been Jimmy Carter (who considered 'killer rabbits' more of a threat than the Soviet Union).

2. The all-powerful Civ4 UN. An obvious example of where the authors' biases led them to make decisions that have a severely negative impact on gameplay. In almost all other aspects Civ4 provides multiple paths to get where you want, with differing trade-offs. But if I'm playing an OCC game, say, and I'm voted out of Bureaucracy, I may as well quit. It certainly should be possible to violate UN resolutions, but with a cost, as there is in the real world. (To make it even more accurate they should put in votes for rotating leader of the UN Human Rights Commission, with the only two allowed candidates being Motezuma and Isabella. )

3. Let's make nuclear power plants useless by having them melt down every few turns. Anyone ever played a game with 10 or so cities, every one of which had a nuclear plant? Enough said. It's simple fact that modern nuclear plants are the safest and most reliable source of energy there is.

4. For even more laughs let's make the nuclear plant meltdowns cause global warming. There is no evidence that global warming is caused by any human activities at all. Whatever climate variations we see are explained far more robustly as just being part of the natural cycle. The false spectre of human-caused global warming is nothing more than an anti-capitalist political ploy.

5. Why FDR and no Ronald Reagan? They both defeated horrible enemies, and are both dead, but FDR gave us the legacy of New-Deal socialism while Reagan tried to reverse that trend.

6. Political correctness taken to the point of ridiculousness with the presence of Jewish missionaries and other religious incongruities. Either go all the way or don't. If you want to give us equal religions, then don't call them by their real-world names.

7. Fascism enabling the building of Mt. Rushmore. Moral relativism at its most disgusting - i.e. equating American patriotism with Fascism.

1. Killer rabits more of a threat than the Soviets? Carter may have been a bit naive at times, but he wasn't stupid. And unless you're joking, you'd have to be pretty stupid to believe such an assertion.

2. What is it with you Republicans and the U.N.? Did they steal your girlfriend in highschool or something? Acknowledging the existence of the United Nations is not a consequence of liberal bias, just like acknowledging the existence of evolution isn't. All it does indicate is a lack of radical right wing bias. And despite what Dr. Fatas$ (aka Rush Limbaugh) might say while doped-up on painkillers, a lack of right-wing bias is not the same as having liberal bias.... Oh and by the way, the last time we violated U.N. resolutions, we ended-up weakening our military in Iraq where we pissed away more than 2,000 American lives for no good reason whatsoever. Maybe having to follow international law wouldn't be such a bad thing after all....

3. Seriously, how dumb are you? I live in the state of Washington, home of the Hanford nuclear disaster. We're still cleaning up that mess more than a decade later. Even when they don't meltdown, they still generate literally tons of dangerous toxic waste-- and yes, "modern" nuclear plants do as well. It's just an inherent drawback of the technology. You see, a radioactive carbon rod is exposed to water, generating steam. This steam powers turbines, thereby generating power. However, the excess water that isn't evaporated must be drained, and is contaminated with nuclear material (hence known as nuclear waste). This waste has to be dumped somewhere, so perhaps you'd let us dump it in your backyard if you think it's so safe? Cuz I sure as hell don't want it in mine! Oh and another thing, hydro-electric power is much safer than nuclear power-- your statement that nuclear power is the safest form of energy on the planet is simply dead wrong. Hell, even coal is safer than nuclear, though admittedly not by much.

4. Newsflash: Jerry Falwell is not a scientist. And scientists who are paid by polluting oil companies like Exxon Mobile to go on Fox News and say that global warming is 100% natural don't count either. I'd say roughly 99% of the scientific community agrees that Co2 and other noxious gasses building up in the atmosphere does lead to a warming effect. To what extent this affects overall climate change as opposed to natural forces is up for debate still, but pretty much all credible scientists agree that it does have at least some negative impact. You really need to get your head out of your ass and start thinking for yourself.

5. FDR was in office longer than any other President in American history, that's why. He saw us through World War II, the most devastating war in our history. He enacted policies that helped get us out of the depression and create a new middle class. Believe me, the New Deal didn't even come close to Socialism. If it did we wouldn't have over 40 million people without access to health coverage today. Reagan, on the other hand, had very little to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. He gets a lot of credit for it because he made a few famous speeches and just happened to be President at the time that it collapsed. If Clinton was President then, he'd probably get the credit. The Soviet Union failed for a number of reasons, and primarily collapsed from within because of popular uprising. The proud people of those countries deserve the credit for overthrowing that corrupt regime after 50 years of oppression, not Ronald Reagan. Face it, history simply doesn't look at the Reagan Administration through the same nestalgic, rose-colored glasses you Republicans see through.

6. I'm not really even sure what you're trying to say with this one. You're angry that there are Jews in the game or something? Believe it or not, Christianity is not the only religion in the world, and is not superior to Judaism or Islam or Buddhism or any of the others. If anything, your argument that they should "go all the way," i.e. include all religions if they're going to include any at all, is the exact same argument that people like me use in arguing that Christian dogma should be kept out of the classroom. Unless they're going to give equal time to all religions, which would be a logistical nightmare and virtually impossible to accomplish, then the only fair thing to do is stay away from it completely and stick to education. If you want your kids to learn a particular religion, such as Christianity, that's what churches are for.

7. I admit I was rather confused by having Mt. Rushmore come with Facism as well. I don't think they were trying to equate "American patriotism," a thoughtless cliche I knew you were bound to use at some point in your post, with the Nazis though. If they were, there are a lot of symbols of "American patriotism" that are much more relevant than the mountain with Presidents' faces carved into it. Still, I would be interested in hearing their reasons for putting Mt. Rushmore into the FAcism category; I just can't imagine how the two are even related, historically or otherwise.


Well, there ya go. It's getting late, so I'll leave you with the words I saw on a rather clever bumper sticker the other day:

"I survived the 2000 election and all I got was this lousy president."


--Kris

 

[nonconformist]

This thread is a perfect reminder to why I maintain that there should be a minimum intelligence requirement to own the internet.

 

[Thalassicus]

The Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This amendment just ensured the right for states to allow their citizens to carry guns for the militia. I don't know how this has been carried over 200 years from frontier colonies to a modern industrial nation, but somehow I doubt we're going to be invaded by Indians any time soon.

Firearms aren't going to stop a foreign attack of intercontinental missiles, after all; laws do become obsolete. The constitution doesn't give the government the right to maintain an air force either...

A better question is if firearm laws would actually have an impact on crime. The writers discussed the reasoning behind the constitution in many other books and articles, to try and convince the states to ratify the new Constitution over the old Articles of Confederation.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

So many misconceptions here I don't know where to begin... the Constitution does not have to 'give' the government the right to form a standing army. The government can do whatever it wants except how it is specifically limited in the Constitution - i.e., it must follow certain rules as to how the President is chosen, and so on. And it can't violate those rights specifically granted to the people and the states (i.e. free speech).

Therefore the 2nd amendment is not there to 'give' the government the right to form an army. It is an INDIVIDUAL right granted to the PEOPLE. The term 'militia' was commonly understood in those days to simply refer to all able-bodied men.

If you state someone has misconceptions, make sure you know your topic

The Congress shall have the power, [...]
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

The Constitution specifically gives the national government the right to form a standing army, something that was forbidden under the Articles of Confederation. This was a big contention point between states' rights and a centralized government, and the result was a compromise, allowing the nation to form both militias and a standing army. Eventually the federalists obviously were in the majority, or the US would have been three or four loosely confederated nations, picked apart by European powers piecemeal in following wars.

The comment regarding the air force was sarcasm... surely you didn't think "firearms not being effective against intercontinental ballistic missiles" was being serious

My point is that it's a weak argument against gun control laws when based on the claim that it's important to maintain a state militia as stated in the Second Amendment. A better point of discussion is as I mentioned above... would the effort, time, and manpower required to enforce stricter gun control laws actually have a positive effect on crime?

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

 

[Kraznaya]

Why Rushmore is Fascist: Mt. Rushmore was originally intended as a monument to Indian chiefs and heros, but they changed it to reflect American patriotism. And then there is the Native American genocide... put two and two together.

 

[Archbob]

I actually see no liberal bias in Civ 4. Although I would have chosen washington and Lincoln to be the 2 leaders.

 

[sirkris]

Nah, Lincoln was a little too early to represent the modern era. I actually thought that Roosevelt was an excellent choice myself.

 

[willemvanoranje]

3. Let's make nuclear power plants useless by having them melt down every few turns. Anyone ever played a game with 10 or so cities, every one of which had a nuclear plant? Enough said. It's simple fact that modern nuclear plants are the safest and most reliable source of energy there is.

I'd like you to read an article called "The ecological Enlightenment" by Ulrich Beck.. it will teach you to say such things

 

[Archbob]

Why not just build the 3 gorges dam?