Thats being made by some other group still. I think the reaction to that is partly what inspired firaxis to make a real x-com game.


In reply to this comment by VoodooV:
Wow. this has changed a lot last time I saw it. I thought they were remaking it into a shooter set in the 50s or something...what happened to that? Did the peasants revolt and let them know that was a bad idea?

Wow. this has changed a lot last time I saw it. I thought they were remaking it into a shooter set in the 50s or something...what happened to that? Did the peasants revolt and let them know that was a bad idea?

ITS A SIGN FROM THE SPORTS GOD! We will have the most pep of all the peasants...

"Stupid peasants are just jealous."
-Kim Jong-Un

You know it's getting bad for hardcore right wingers when they're coming up with ridiculous, incomprehensible names like "TrogLibDytes". Are those liberal followers of the almighty Trogdor, who looks to spread burnination among all peasants and their thatch-roof cottages?

Or is that a typo for "ProgLibDytes", which is similar, but with less majesty?

I can't tell anymore. You should just keep the name calling to terms like "Communist" and "Socialist". It's easier for people without a brain to follow you.

As for obsessing over one economic statistic, which economic statistics should we be focusing on? Unemployment rate? Which one is going to paint the economy the way you want it to be, not for how it is. You can't just pretend severe economic inequality doesn't exist just because the policies you favor led to it.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Sigh.
ProgLibDytes really need to get over thier obsession with the GINI index, which was created by a fascist as a trick to gin up the sheeple masses. The whole "Income Gap" is just a new label to a decades old fascist propoganda tool. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together sees such naked hate-mongering exactly for what it is. Obsessing over a single economic statistic is like using one pixel in a 24,000,000 pixel image to describe a whole thing.
People like Cunk and all the TrogLibDyte acolytes that slurp down all his verbal diarrhea love to talk about nothing but the income gap because it is one of the rare few economic stats (out of thousands) that strikes a chord with the masses who are ignorant of real economics. Same motive as the reason the fascists created the GINI index. Get people mad at a small target and they are easy to manipulate. Hows it feel, ProgLibDytes, knowing that you are so easily suckered in by the same tricks used by the Nazis? Obama's mentor - Saul Alinsky - would be proud as he literally wrote the book on methods for flim-flamming the slow and the stupid. Change one word in his rant, and you can't tell the difference betwen Cunk and Gobbels.

*BANINATING THE COUNTRYSIDE, *BANINATING THE PEASANTS

all valid points about movies cinemas etc....but seriously why is no-one talking about how crappy of a movie this is?

Its about a horse tied into wwi. Its like legends of the fall but instead of people...theres a horse. Or maybe its nothing like legends but still...seriously..... wwi patriotism repackaged with a horse

If you like war movies.....that was probably all the war scenes you're going to get.

'Be careful [sir dashing aristocratic dweeb) with me horse sir' ...'No problem (peasant boy) who despite his peasant baseness somehow managed to raise this noble horse despite....No wait, BECAUSE of his peasant simplicity managed to raise a fine noble horse and will somehow woo the wealthy girl.

*facepalm*.... to each their own.

How could anyone from any ideology say with a straight face that S. Korea needs our help (at our expense of billions per year)?

Their economy is like 50x the size of the North Korean economy, which basically consists of peasants eating roots to survive.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Terry Jones' Medieval Lives 1 - The Peasant. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

"Our current capitalist system, that everyone believed would be smoothly spread around the globe, is untenable."

Should've been a clue when they had to start murdering peasants to accept it.

I want there to be no peasant in my kingdom on the Sift so poor that he cannot have a chicken in his pot every Sunday. That Sir, is the one feature I would like to see!

Oh yeah, maybe a tag cloud while you are at it?

>> ^marbles:

Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority.

This is your premise, it is also your conclusion. You have failed to demonstrate it at all. You have not made an argument. You have simply made a flurry of self contradicting statements, and insisted that they are true, and that any counter argument is false by definition. Do you really expect anybody to take you seriously?

>> ^marbles:

I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.


Marx advocated only the abolition of capital, not of workers rights to what they produce, he believed that capitalism had already destroyed that right:

>> ^Karl_Marx:

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing
the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a
man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork
of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the
property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of
property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to
abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent
already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.


>> ^marbles:

the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.
So where does production come from again?



To restate: where does the producing of articles having exchange value. come from

Lets see, how many ways can I interpret this?

1) Where do produced items come from : They are made of other things + energy, conservation of M/E
2) Where does the idea of production come from : The social contract of market societies
3) Where does the exchange value of objects come from : Somewhat arbitrary cultural valuation
4) ??? : what you secretly mean probably goes here, how about cluing us in?

>> ^marbles:

I did just clearly demonstrate it.

Where?

>> ^marbles:

Care to prove it false?

State your case and I'll give it a whirl.

>> ^marbles:
Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?

Because the logical consistency of your ideology depends on the ability to bootstrap a property system with the ownership (as in what they word usually means) of self. Dispensing with that when it gets inconvenient makes the whole thing fall apart.

Without actual self ownership, you have no logically necessary ownership claim to the value produced by self, and so you can not build you system on property only. You must start adding more first principles in order to get there. If libertarians have been purposely obfuscating their ideology as you claim, then they have been hiding the weakness in their argument, and making a false case.

I take most libertarians at there word that they actually meant what they said. Your position now significantly diverges from that put forth in the video, and requires you to make a different argument to bootstrap your personal libertarian-derived view.

What new first principle are you introducing to bootstrap ownership from only figurative ownership of self?

>> ^marbles:

I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract?

You used its existence as an argument. You want to back peddle and say you didn't mean it? Then do so.

>> ^marbles:

I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.

And then, as an example, argued that I was wrong because what I suggested would not work in my property arrangement, read the transcript.

>> ^marbles:

And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

possession ≠ fee-simple

Possession is fact, who has current physical control of a thing is not an issue for philosophy, but only of physicality. If I hold a pen in my hand I possess it, irrespective of any ownership claims on the pen. To take the pen from me without my consent requires the initiation of actual physical force against me, based on the physics.

If you own the pen, I don't have to interact with you in any way to use it, or take it home with me. There is no way to know if you own the pen, or if anybody does.

There is no demonstrable physical consequence of fee-simple property, possession, on the other hand in a matter of facts. My acceptance of both the fact and historical relevance of possession, does not get you within miles of fee-simple.

In the beginning there was a fountain
But it wasn't just any fountain
It was a fountain of light
It was a fountain of truth
It was a fountain of dreams
It was a fountain of youth

It was a magic fountain

And we were never told
That the fountain was a trophy for the kingdoms of old
A treasure a plaything a Trojan in disguise
And in the last great war the secret burned up in the fire
So the peasants stormed mountain tops pretending to be king
While the king sailed off in their balloons pursuing idle things
? Hit the Himalayas in the night

It was a magic fountain

And so it was some motley crew who found it in the night
One of them a lunatic told me of his plight
One dived to the left of him two went to the right
But he remained he said he saw he said he saw the light

And it was magic fountain
Magic fountain

This is only a problem of definition. You're defining evil to be a universal attribute that applies to both God and man, but it doesn't. That is because evil itself is defined simply as disobedience towards God, and thus something only a man can do. God cannot disobey Himself. Nothing God does could ever be defined as evil because God isn't under His own authority. God is the source of the authority which defines for us what evil actually is. Gods omniscience is not violated because it not applicable to Him.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm sorry for making light of your nickname. You were however being pedantic by ignoring my entire response and centering on your rote understanding of the word omniscience. Why don't you read this and flesh out your understanding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began
In regards to the capacity to do evil, evil is just the absence of the perfect and therefore imperfect. God could not be perfect if He acted imperfectly. Since evil is imperfect, God is incapable of evil. Does this limit Gods omnipotence? No..the question of whether God can do anything is tied into what is actually possible. For instance, is it possible for an evil God to create and maintain a Universe? I would say no because only an all-loving God could or would do the things which create and sustain it. An evil God would be selfish and unwilling to do those things, as well as limited in the knowledge it would take to create it in the first place.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.
It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.
Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?


Wikipedia is not used as a source by intelligent people as intelligent people know that it can be edited by anyone, including those with a personal interest. You are an intelligent person, so it surprises me that you would use it. Try looking at a dictionary.
And you make it very hard to respond to your entire posts as you spend the whole time avoiding the crux of the argument. If there is something evil that God cannot do, he is not omnipotent. If God can do evil but chooses not to, then he still has the capacity for evil. As such, if God is "incapable of evil", then he is not omnipotent.