lol ok not to offend anyone who is religious, and i hope this doesnt end up being trolling, but i noticed on one of my islands that i was having tourism trouble, so i wanted to enact the papal visit edict, but they were not happy enough to i did some digging. in the process i found out that they were pissed about the same sex marriages, so i went to bribe the leader and found the he was married to a doctor..

I am pissed of about that too comrade ( post #22 most annoying faction poll ) I have seen a 60 years old priest married to 22 years old fisherman.

haha thats hilarious, ive seen a 60 year old bishope with 2 kids married to a 24 year old cop, so he came out of the closet and then got a divorce lol i wonder how this would effect the naming scheme i was just reading about..

I'm offended. Now bow to my demands.

I hate that mentality in general. But that's besides the point.

Frankly imo too many liberals feel that the solution to hypocrisy to to abolish the concept of morals altogether, or at least that's what I piece together from rantings of the such. I personally believe that it is better to have a moral standard higher than you can possibly reach than have no moral standards or worse yet the whole make-it-up-as-you-go, he-does-X-it's-wrong-I-do-X-it's-fine moral relativism nonsense. Both of the alternatives are absolutely meaningless. The former is rooted in ignorance, the latter in selfishness.

So yes, you will see hypocrisy from religious folk. This comes from the fact that often religious groups set a very high moral standard (relatively speaking) and in more than a few instances cannot reach it due to the such. Especially if you create an environment where such disobedience is accepted, if not recommended such as your same-sex marriage islands. However, when similar instances are seen in the real world, they generally do not spring from fault of character or personal weakness. Rather, it is to be seen as a mistake, and a learning experience rather than to be rationalized and accepted.

I guess what it boils down to is that I'd rather be a hypocrite than willfully blind of my own transgressions, and if you don't have answers to the whole right vs. wrong situations, don't criticize mine.

Folks -- Oh my word!

You could look back at how many times this "stuff" has been discussed to death.
http://forum.kalypsomedia.com/showthread...0#pid15820

chrono : The female womanizer was an entirely conscious desicion. I'm not kidding, arguments were presented, sides were taken. Loyalties - pledged, friendships - broken. In the end, it was left like this because it seemed both realistic, and hilarious

Now read before and after that in the #61 to #89 of the series of posts in that thread.

I postulate that we will never know why the Haemimont developers thought the "Gay Marriage Edict" was worth adding to the game. However it is now evident that it certainly serves to detract the player community from other gameplay issues which are actually pertinent. The "Gay Marriage Edict" is an unconcealed "Easter Egg" which produces ridiculous and hilarious gameplay effects which have nothing to do with any simulation of the real world. It is the developers' gift to the up-tight, nerdy players who fixate on their "Verisimilitude" of the game world as the real world.

If you really want to "cock-up" your game so that you can't tell what the hell is going on, use this edict. It isn't about hypocracy of any variety -- it's about how easy it is to feed game players some Alice-In-Wonderland hallucinogenic features. And the response on the discussion boards provide the crew at Haemimont Studios with breaktime laughs. I was tricked myself. It's not pleasant to discover suddenly the vertual "sharp-stick-in-the-eye."

It was easy to do, code-wise -- just convert all citizens to the gender treatment used for cows. Players -- check for the source of the babies in your population after you use this edict. So many male couples ; so many female couples --- any fewer babies? Ranches: so many cows or nanneys with no bulls or billies; but the calfs and kids come along. Do you discuss hypocracy on the ranch?

lol wow, i just thought it was a funny byproduct of the edict, didnt ruin anything for me nor am i actually angry, i was just trying to be funny.. the title of the thread was just because i knew it was 72 font worthy lol

This is sad. In order to use the word "liberal", you better look up what it means before PRETENDING you know. (it's called a dictionary).
LIberal=liberty for all.

That does NOT mean there are no morals. It means freedom/liberty for all the people, not just for some. Of course, i have ALWAYS found religious people as THE most ANTI-moral people on the planet. The priest that where molesting boys, protected by the church, would be a great example of that.

btw, hypocrisy means saying not to do something, but doing it yourself. REAL morals would NOT lead to being a hypocrite. It has NOTHING to do with how high you set your standards. It's your own actions.

(19-05-2011 08:24 PM)computertech Wrote:  This is sad. In order to use the word "liberal", you better look up what it means before PRETENDING you know. (it's called a dictionary).
LIberal=liberty for all.

That is just one meaning out of about 10 in Webster’s Dictionary, and this site Dictionarly.com. I think in this particular manner that the user used the word correctly, as I understood him. You need to look up all the meanings, not just the one to your liking, or interpretation. A liberal person, or belief does not necessarily mean liberty for all. Just food for thought before you chastise someone. Re-read how the word was used in his content, and apply the meaning accordingly.

here is a perfect definition of liberal,

a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties



Yet some how these days its tossed around as if its an insult, those damn liberals..


that said, I always laugh when some religious person cherry picks the bible to form morals.. it should be more of.. I just made this crap up and i deam it unmoral.. working on sunday, being gay, drinking, smoking, worshiping false gods.. (who decides which is false?), and ohh yea.. all women are evil.. the bible says it it must be true !!


that said, I really wanna see animated witch burnings in tropico.. You know just like those Moral puritains... the ones that went on a killing spree cause the entire town was triping on infected grain.. it coincided with the salmen witch trials.. back in around the 1700's or was it 18? i forget. its a very interesting peice of history..

tropican thought bubbles

Burn the witch !!

She cast a spell on me that made me do evil things

I hope they dont find out im a witch too!

I swear Ms rodrigous is a witch, perhaps i should tell someone..

I should of brought marshmellows

Should be noted that there is something called "the liberal paradox" which means that liberalism can only be achieved by being that - liberal. Hence you do not allow for deviations because the way liberalism is defined. (Reread it if you didn't understand, it's late and my brain is too tired to put in a more developed way. Or look up someone who defined it better than I.)

With that said, I don't really mind priests marrying to other men and so on, obviously, in real life it's not as simple to say that person X always adhere to faction Y person X belongs to. Ergo, being strictly religious and gay can work if you want to make it work. It all matters how you understand your faith and to be quite frank, people will always hold contradictive values. It just becomes more apparent with religious folks because they are more open with what values they claim to be prefer. Furthermore, being religious will always be logically contradictive because no religion is logically sound. Hence, individual deviations are going on, and since the factions cannot actually hire or fire someone based on their actions/beliefs, you will see a priest married to (or at least living with) a dock worker. And I'm perfectly fine with it (honestly, are you really THAT liberal if you despise one group so much to the point where it becomes questionable if you accept the group's existence AT ALL)?

logic is never flawed.. Only the interpertion of it..


there is logic for everything, the hard part is to find it.


Like,.. american idol should be the best entertainment in america cause its the most popular acording to its veiwers..

the flaw, is one must be 8 to understand why this is.





though honestly, there is no flaw in this.. just take real world religion, Many religous think being gay is a sin, yet there are religous gay people, including gay preists.. part of the religious faction would definalty not like or aprove of gay preists, so this is fairly accurate.

I personaly get a big chuckle outta it when a preist is married to a male student..

almost as much as caberet girls to retired old dude with like a couple of kids by the time she is 20..

As for liberal, I guess it all depends on who you ask, and how the word is used according to the dictionary’s definition.

As for morals & religion, you don’t necessarily need one to obtain the other. For example:

I’m an atheist, but I don’t bash people of the head with it. In fact, I really don’t talk about religion too much. However, that doesn’t make me less moral than a religious person. My morals are sound. It’s not a matter of if you can do something rather than should you do something. By that, I mean if you saw a stranger in an accident, and in need of medical attention. You should do something. A less moral person would do nothing. Same as an unattended bicycle. Yes, you can take it, but should you? Morals to me is the decision of right & wrong as you were taught as a child by your parents, or another prominent figure in your life.

On the other hand, I know many religious people that have a very low standard of morals that wouldn’t give you a band-aid if you were bleeding. Even the confession of sins, and to go right out and commit the same sin over again. Isn’t a confession to repent, and refrain from doing the same thing? This is what lead me to my loss of faith as a teenager. It’s the hypocrisy that I saw surrounding religion in my youth, and still today. So I just rely on my morals, and friends that I surround myself with to get through life on a daily basis.

All in all, being moral doesn’t mean you’re religious, and being religious doesn’t mean you’re moral.

PS:
Just so that you all know, I as an atheist see nothing wrong with “In God We Trust” in a courtroom, on American currency, or “The Ten Commandments” outside the US Supreme Court. I’m not one of those atheist. To me The Commandments are morally just for the most part, and “In God We Trust” is just words that don’t offend me like radical atheist people. I’m not a Christian, but I love Christmas, and to hear holiday well wishers whether it’s Happy Chanukah, or Merry Christmas. I just like the feeling I get during that time of the year. In our family we don’t pray, but we use this time to get together, and thank ourselves for what we have, what we can give, and what we’ve become.