• Moose
  • Announcements

    • Dirktator

      Need your donations for May & June!   05/01/2017

      We need your support to help keep Simtropolis online. We also need a little bit more this month to enhance the new chat with some features, such as mobile support! Please consider a donation today if you can help out, it would mean a lot! And we'll send you a little gift in return.  Help us reach our May goal so we can keep bringing you site improvements as well!  Donate and Get a Gift or Donate Any Amount Thanks so much! - Dirktator & The Admins

Community Goings-on

SimCity 4 community sites, contests, news and other general SC4 community related information

205 topics in this forum

    • 30 Replies
    • 4,083 Views
    • 58 Replies
    • 3,835 Views
    • 8 Replies
    • 1,678 Views
    • 41 Replies
    • 6,578 Views
    • 0 Replies
    • 37 Views
    • 2 Replies
    • 101 Views
    • 4 Replies
    • 164 Views
    • 0 Replies
    • 108 Views
    • 1 Reply
    • 134 Views
    • 1 Reply
    • 87 Views
    • 3 Replies
    • 133 Views
    • 20 Replies
    • 695 Views
    • 1 Reply
    • 184 Views
    • 30 Replies
    • 593 Views
    • 37 Replies
    • 1,378 Views
    • 10 Replies
    • 294 Views
    • 70 Replies
    • 4,663 Views
    • 32 Replies
    • 1,286 Views
    • 65 Replies
    • 3,041 Views
    • 3 Replies
    • 270 Views
    • 8 Replies
    • 312 Views
    • 0 Replies
    • 237 Views
    • 4 Replies
    • 1,098 Views
    • 4 Replies
    • 229 Views
    • 2 Replies
    • 152 Views
    • 1 Reply
    • 191 Views
    • 2 Replies
    • 267 Views
    • 85 Replies
    • 7,541 Views
    • 4 Replies
    • 278 Views
    • 8 Replies
    • 1,048 Views
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Featured Topics

  • Recent Posts

    • Knowingly killing a bunch of children is slightly different from being ordered to bomb/invade/capture something without bothering to check it's all clear of innocents first. I don't think anyone in the armed services would knowingly slaughter a bunch of children frankly, even if some bad guy/(s) were there. You know, rules of engagement and all that. Isn't that statement more an affirmation that you would equate the two acts as being the same, when the reality is they are anything but? In any case if you take that to mean I was calling everyone in the armed services mentally deficient, you clearly have misunderstood what I was trying to convey at some fundamental level. I think there is a distinction to be made here. The point I was trying to convey previously is simply that many of those committing so called terrorist atrocities recently are not actually terrorists. They do not belong to any terrorist organisation, they were not trained by one nor radicalised in the strictest sense. Some of them are just people who decided they wanted to hurt people and end it all, giving themselves a cause to die for in the process. As for whether that is the case in this instance, well it remains to be found out, I was just putting that out there as a possibility. Not all terrorists are insane, not all bombers are terrorists and many of those committing these acts would be considered to have mental deficiencies. But what does that mean? A serial killer might just be someone who doesn't place a value on the lives of those they kill. But it is society that has created standards, including what is and isn't considered sane. But, we know that some of those recent incidents, not explicitly the person behind yesterday's attack, were not what society would call mentally stable. In all likelihood that is the main reason behind their crimes, but they are chalked up to terrorism instead. Yes and no. Because what we're getting into here is what is considered by most in civilised society to be rationale and sane. But these are human constructs, born by a desire to evolve beyond our animal tendencies into civilised beings. You could argue life isn't worth a damn, the universe is chaos and random and so nothing we all do matters. After all we're pretty sure one day it will all end somehow with another mass extinction anyway. But I think most people do think life has value. Just because cows who are bred for the express purpose of being eaten and used in products are slaughtered, does not mean it follows it's OK to slaughter humans. That's a really poorly thought out argument that completely ignores the reason why we're doing it in the first place. There wouldn't be anything like as many cows, chickens, pigs, sheep etc if we were not breeding them to eat and survive. If the process seems heartless, perhaps you should take a look at the number of people that need feeding these days? If we were going around taking pot-shots at animals for fun, or for some religious reason, that would be a different story altogether. But do such animals bred for an explicit purpose hold a similar value to humans? Of course they don't, suggesting they do is frankly ridiculous, if we weren't eating them, wouldn't exist in the first place. Which is really the entire point I was trying to make earlier. We can't assume this is the work of ISIS or a terrorist group at this time. If indeed he was working alone, which of course is speculation at this point, there is a possibility he was not a terrorist. At the very least he wasn't a part of ISIS in that case. And we as a society should stop playing into this narrative, because it makes groups like ISIS look far bigger and scarier than the actual reality is. That's exactly the effect the news is trying to create, in some ways governments too. Since it justifies a limitless invasion over our private lives, creating laws which are rarely used for the defined purpose. Want an example of why that's bad, imagine a 21st century Gestapo with access to everything you've ever done and said online? Now that's something to truly be scared of. The reality is that however terrible the acts of terrorists are, over the course of a fraction of an average year, more will die in traffic accidents. In 2015, 1,732 people were killed on the roads, but few are scared of cars. Yet we are far more likely to die in one than by the hands of a terrorist. It's about remaining grounded enough to see things for what they are. We're not going to stop terrorism, murderers or people dying, to think we could simply belies the reality of how things work. There will always and have always been people who wish to do others harm. But we need to put the actual risk into perspective, that's all. Again I fear you are comparing apples with oranges, you know an eye for an eye, so it's somehow all the same. But knowingly blowing up young people and children is very different to trying to stop an evil dictator who's murdering his own people on a daily basis. I think it's pretty obvious that children were a target in this case, but you can't tell me the US, UK or other countries involved in action in Muslim countries are targetting children. Sadly, war is a nasty business, people get caught in the crossfire. Where do you really think the refuge problem stems from? The root cause is Assad's regime and the manner in which it was treating it's civilians. Other groups then waged war to try and depose him, in the meantime the world powers have dipped one toe into the water and picked their sides. It's this ongoing war that has led to a mass exodus. It's not like it's all the fault of those fighting against it, the problem is much more complex than that. To conveniently ignore all those factors doesn't help anyone, simplification of very complex events ultimately leads to big misunderstandings, sometimes with terrible consequences. Should we have just sat by and watched Hitler take over the globe piece by piece? At some point, for the betterment of mankind, someone had to have the guts to stand up to his regime. Of course not all such wars are so black and white, but I'd like to think the idea of protecting the people of Syria from Assad, is ultimately a moral one. How we go about that, well that's a lot more tricky, since the last thing people support is long and drawn out conflicts. So instead we go in with limited people on the ground and using technological and weapons superiority. That brings a whole other bunch of problems and morality issues into the fold. But let's not forget the target in this example is a maniac prepared to use chemical weaponry on kids (and adults), among his many crimes against humanity. Of course it's true that we try to assign ethicality to such scenarios, yet we turn a blind eye to similar or worse atrocities where it suits our interests to ignore the plight of those involved. Just like it can be said we could go about fighting such evil better and avoiding more innocents getting caught up in the ordeal. But rather than bomb you because I disagree with your solution, rationale people prefer to try and open discourse. There are people who believe (wrongly), that this is all some anti-Muslim crusade, which couldn't be further from the truth. So if that's your starting point, I think it's fair to call you delusional at the very least. But looking at the events rationally, even if you disagree with one side of it, is no justification for spilling more blood, you'd have to be crazy to think that way.
    • I have never experienced that, but maybe it would help if you change the fly routes with More Network Stuff (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=512314255&searchtext=network), so the shortest route is not anymore over the 'vertical' runway. Hope that helps, and anyway, nice airport!
    • Close but not quite....  
  • New Topics

  • Simtropolis Challenges Previous Winner