Jump to content
270soft Forum
Ido

Project Israel

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Patine said:

So many extremist parties. It's downright frightening. People tend to only vote for extremists if acting out of irrational fear, believing lies and myths, or just not thinking, regardless of the extremist party and the country in question.

Define extremist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Define extremist.

An ideology built on one or more of irrational, reckless action, giving to fearmongering and/or xenophobia, knee-jerk reaction to a situation without measured thought, revival of a nostalgic and distorted view of the past, return to ideologies that have failed outright and ignoring such failures, self-serving or twisted and distorted theocratic ideas loosely ways on a religion, but heavily altered or misinterpreted for ulterior motives, believing long-debunked myths and lies, and forcing those beliefs on others as policy, promoting war or violence beyond the reasonable and true definition of self-defense (that is, carrying aggression outside your borders to another sovereign nation, or land non-integral to yours, for any reason), and promoting these ideas with uncompromising, aggressive, belligerent, bellicose, and even militant tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Patine said:

distorted theocratic ideas loosely ways on a religion, but heavily altered or misinterpreted for ulterior motives, believing long-debunked myths and lies, and forcing those beliefs on others as policy,

This is based on the assumption that theocratic tendencies are an incorrect understanding of religion. Who said this was so? A good case can be made that at times it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

This is based on the assumption that theocratic tendencies are an incorrect understanding of religion. Who said this was so? A good case can be made that it isn't.

The problem is how to differentiate inspired religious leaders who speak for the Divine with genuine authority from those who indeed take such offices in vane for evil ends and ulterior motives and to use the power and respect of such an office to commit evil acts and atrocities and say they're "good and righteous." I believe it is better to assume no mortal - all of whom are flawed, faulted, biased, corruptible, and seething in base desires and ambitions - truly speaks for the Divine, and thus no mortal may "edit" or "re-interpret" Scripture unilaterally or arbitrarily. Plus, I'm also of the opinion that forced conversion (or forcing those who don't belong to the religion of the "theocrats" to obey their laws under threat of draconian punishment) to a given religion, or inducting a child into a religion before they're of the age of consent (roughly the same age where sex, marriage, and binding major business contracts would be acceptable to be entered into in modern, civilized societies), are wrong and a grievance - I strongly believe, as do a few a other theologians through the ages in their minority opining, that one should only enter the membership of a religion with a clear and sober mind, full and complete, uncoerced, willingness, and knowing full well what you are getting into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

 I believe it is better to assume no mortal - all of whom are flawed, faulted, biased, corruptible, and seething in base desires and ambitions - truly speaks for the Divine, and thus no mortal may "edit" or "re-interpret" Scripture unilaterally or arbitrarily

Including liberal theologians who reinterpret morally offensive or passages otherwise incompatible with modernity?

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

inducting a child into a religion before they're of the age of consent (roughly the same age where sex, marriage, and binding major business contracts would be acceptable to be entered into in modern, civilized societies), are wrong and a grievance - I strongly believe, as do a few a other theologians through the ages in their minority opining, that one should only enter the membership of a religion with a clear and sober mind, full and complete, uncoerced, willingness, and knowing full well what you are getting into.

Can you please elaborate a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Can you please elaborate a bit.

I firmly believe that religious indoctrination of children by parents and communities in a mandatory manner that "assumes" the child's religious identity before they can possibly consent or understand the ramifications, and declare their membership in said religious community a fait accompli before they have the faculties or maturity to make any informed or sober decision, and then treat them as "apostate," "heretic," and "outcast," and feel fully justified in such attitudes and behaviour, if they gravitate away from said religion in adulthood, is a travesty of an institution, in my opinion. One should only enter a religion at the age of consent, with full and genuine, uncoerced, willingness, and full and complete understanding of what that religions means and stands for prior to becoming a member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Including liberal theologians who reinterpret morally offensive or passages otherwise incompatible with modernity?

Every single religion of significant impact and pedigree on this Earth has Scripture that suffers from ambiguity, vagueness, uncertainty, blank lines in the meaning, and the issues of translation and multitudes of copies since the original. However, different people who study the Scriptures often come to different conclusions of how these questions are answered. But, at the end of the day, each should follow their own heart and faith in these uncertain areas and filling in these blank lines, because, in the end, for each, it is their own Final Reward or Perdition that is at stake. BUT, when certain religious officials want to decide - with their flawed, biased, prejudiced, faulted, and ambitious mortal minds and viewpoints - these answers for everyone, and thus possibly jeopardizing the Great Beyond for all under their political and legal influence - through lawmaking and trial and punishment by those self-same mortals or their loyal cronies and disciples - thus securing a far greater political grip on their religious community and the power that comes with the toxic and virulent mix of politics and faith - then THAT the great evil I speak of. I regard theocracy, no matter what religion it claims to represent, to be at least as horrible a socio-political as Fascism (including Naziism), Stalinism (the worst branch of Communism), Absolute Monarchialism, Juche, Rampant Colonialism and Imperialism, High Exploitative and Corruptive Corporatism, and governments that just treasonously sell-out ALL interests and advocacy of the good and advancement and desires of their own people complete, and suppress and silence their own people through draconian methods just to please several foreign masters, like Pinochet or the Shah of Iran were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 3:09 AM, Patine said:

Every single religion of significant impact and pedigree on this Earth has Scripture that suffers from ambiguity, vagueness, uncertainty, blank lines in the meaning, and the issues of translation and multitudes of copies since the original. However, different people who study the Scriptures often come to different conclusions of how these questions are answered. But, at the end of the day, each should follow their own heart and faith in these uncertain areas and filling in these blank lines, because, in the end, for each, it is their own Final Reward or Perdition that is at stake. BUT, when certain religious officials want to decide - with their flawed, biased, prejudiced, faulted, and ambitious mortal minds and viewpoints - these answers for everyone, and thus possibly jeopardizing the Great Beyond for all under their political and legal influence - through lawmaking and trial and punishment by those self-same mortals or their loyal cronies and disciples - thus securing a far greater political grip on their religious community and the power that comes with the toxic and virulent mix of politics and faith - then THAT the great evil I speak of...

What if their interpretation requires them to act on their beliefs and to,for example, institute a theocracy? Should everyone be allowed to "follow their heart and fill in the blank lines" if it leads to ISIS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NYrepublican said:

What if their interpretation requires them to act on their beliefs and to,for example, institute a theocracy? Should everyone be allowed to "follow their heart and fill in the blank lines" if it leads to ISIS?

ISIS is NOT the result of what I'm talking about. They are, themselves, a forced theocracy, and one of the worst in modern days (though most theocracies in Antiquity and Medieval times were far more brutal and absolutist, regardless of religion), and thus is actually a counterpoint to what I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Patine said:

ISIS is NOT the result of what I'm talking about. They are, themselves, a forced theocracy, and one of the worst in modern days (though most theocracies in Antiquity and Medieval times were far more brutal and absolutist, regardless of religion), and thus is actually a counterpoint to what I'm saying.

Fine,replace ISIS with Saudi-style theocracy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Fine,replace ISIS with Saudi-style theocracy.

 

Identical counter-point, but worse. A legitimate, internationally recognized nation with full diplomatic and trade relations and a UN seat would be far worse of said violation in my mind than a band of violent, retrograde criminals controlling a piece of land through thug rule, to be honest, at least as I see things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

either way, I will release a "complete" version once the elections roll around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine @NYrepublican

 

ok, new update, I consider this the 'complete' update if nothing big happens before April 9th

I had a lot of additions such as new endorsers, new events, tried to balance it as much as possible too and added a few "what if" parties such as the Zionist Union and the Jewish Home with Bennett (you can also start a game with Yesh Atid and Hosen separate but that has some finicky balance)

if this indeed is the final version I'll upload it to the campaigns page and start a new scenario (probably 2015)

Israel 2019.rar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 5:49 PM, Ido said:

@Patine @NYrepublican

 

ok, new update, I consider this the 'complete' update if nothing big happens before April 9th

I had a lot of additions such as new endorsers, new events, tried to balance it as much as possible too and added a few "what if" parties such as the Zionist Union and the Jewish Home with Bennett (you can also start a game with Yesh Atid and Hosen separate but that has some finicky balance)

if this indeed is the final version I'll upload it to the campaigns page and start a new scenario (probably 2015)

Israel 2019.rar

Some trivia:Gantz is Yiddish for whole also meaning wholesome in character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

Likud has 40 seats now as per Channel 11 and Gantz 35.

Netanyahu said in his victory speech that this is an "achievement that was never done prior to me."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Netanyahu said in his victory speech that this is an "achievement that was never done prior to me."

And it should never have happened. This rise of hard nationalists around the world is a sign of destructive, short-term, desperate, and toxic nostalgic, and, ultimately, uncompromising (and the worse, and bloodier aspects that tend to follow uncompromising) thinking in so many countries. As far as I'm concerned, the world is not as it was 100 years ago, and hard nationalists, regardless of the nation (or aspired nation) they represent, are, in the long-term a socio-political cancer and could be even be construed as enemies, on the longer arc of things (which none of them even think in or acknowledge) as enemies of the human species as the whole, EVEN their own nationality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok ok stop, only talk about scenarios here, I will modify the scenario a bit to simulate what happened last night

 

@NYrepublican @Patine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...