JanYpe

Happy 2009!

Good to see another update, great work.

Exciting history, exciting previews, great pictures: we want more!

Finland?

Great stuff, especially the final mosaic. Where did you get that thatched farmhouse way at the top of the second to last mosaic? That's definitely one I could use.

Originally posted by: manticorefan Originally posted by: masochist {Big-ass symbol}quote> That is the symbol of 'Pontifex Maximus', the official title of the high priest of the old Roman pagan temple. Caesar took it upon himself as the Roman emperor, who was considered a god-king. It's also where we get the word 'pontiff', used for the pope.quote> The Pontifex Maximus never had a symbol as such besides their robes. The Chi-Rho as a combined symbol did not appear before the second century AD, at the earliest, when it was adopted by the various early christian churches. Gaius Julius Caesar was both pontiff and pontifex maximus during his career but never became emperor. Following Caesars added Pontifex Maximus to their stable of titles, and most of them were styled god-emperor in at least part of the empire. (god-emperor being the key here, the Romans had a fierce distaste for kings) The degree in which they were actually considered gods is debetable, and it is important to note the different perceptions and definitions people had of "gods" in these times. Use Wiki with care, there's a lot of false info there.quote>A quick google search shows you quite blatently based your information on conspiracy toting, misinformed websites. You do not get to throw the first false infomation stone, as you clearly are not without sin on this front yourself. But I digress, ' cause this thread ain't about that. Sorry everybuggy, just had to clear that up.quote> You are right, this thread is not about that. It is in fact trolling of this thread on your part. You cleared nothing up, but merely injected what is at best misinformation and at worst plain ignorance into it. Originally posted by: Danlikebooks What about if I hate happiness/ merriness? Where do I fit in then?quote> I shall wish you a hearty "Bah, humbug " and everyone else a Vrolijk Kerstfeest, Prettige Feestdagen, Merry Christmas and a happy new year.

More Than One Way Home (Keb' Mo') Life On Mars? (David Bowie)

Simtropolis rules say:11. Religion and Politics. Discussion concerning religion or politics is only permitted in designated threads in the General Off Topic and Current Events forums. Discussion must be about the issues, not each other. quote>This section of the forum is for discussing things related to Cities XL, not the respective merits of political views.

That river is a lovely bit of nature.

Originally posted by: manticorefan Oh boy, here we go again. Both Alfred North Whitehead and J Robert Oppenheimer stressed that modern science was born of a Christian worldview. Whitehead said in his book Science and the Modern World said that Christianity is the mother of science due to "the medieval insistence on the rationality of God".quote> Considering the Christian worldview has gone pretty much unchallenged in western-European cultures since the 500s, it's no surprise scientific research was influenced by this fairly dominant cultural component. Dr Malcolm Reeves in his book The Scientific Enterprise and the Christian Faith says, "It was with the rediscovery of the Bible and of its message at the time of the Reformation... that a new impetus came to the development of science. This new impetus, flowing together with all that was best of Greek thinking, was to produce the right mixture to detonate the chain reaction leading to the explosion of knowledge which began at the start of the scientific revolution in the 16th century, and which is proceeding with ever-increasing momentum today."quote> The reformation came at the heels of the Renaissance, and took place in a time when consolidating national entities focused more on pushing outward, competing with eachother, than before. This flowery bit of prose by dr Jeeves gives a very summary picture of the period, and seems to treat it as the starting point of an unbroken and constantly climbing line of development. Jeeves is a respectable professor of psychology, and probably using this as some sort of introduction, which is fine and dandy if you're not going for absolute historical precision. For you to use it as an absolutely accurate depiction of history, however, is misguided. Going back to the subject of evolution, it might be a good idea to point out to the boys and girls in the audience just when dr Jeeves was publishing: 1969. The whole of science hasn't exactly stood still in the intervening years, and evolutionary biology in particular was only just putting its running shoes on in 1969 for the race it was going to run between the 1970s and today. 7 of the 10 scientists who founded the Royal Society of London were Puritans, at a time when they were a tiny minority in England. Stop claiming a false dichotomy between science and religion; there isn't one except in the mind of a nonbeliever. quote> "In the mind of a nonbeliever"! Very fire and brimstone, hardly a substantial argument. The rest of this paragraph is a bit of a non sequitur. No, for a long time there wasn't much of a dichotomy between science and religion. Education took place in monasteries, then catherdral churches and then in universities where the study of theology was often regarded as one of the higher pursuits. The Catholic church was the main institution that needed scholars, and so, since they were the only real institution with that capacity, they had to raise their own batches of them. None of which actually adds up to your apparent conclusion of the bible being the font of all knowledge. Neoplatonism was an early focus, with churchfathers like Augustine being well-versed in classical philosophy, since basic tenents of Platonism could be compared with those of the Christian faith. (copying from my notes, it mainly involved an infatuation with the idea of jehovah fitting into the hi

Originally posted by: Duke87 *sings* It's like raaaaaiiiiaaaaiiiinnnnnnnnnnn......... on your wedding day! *window shatters*quote> ...don´t make me call the irony police.

Ain't No Reason (Brett Dennen) Why Can't We Be Friends? (Smash Mouth)

Originally posted by: SkiGeek Originally posted by: JanYpe It's a pretty big leap from the poorly set-up system that you mention to the the "provoking and encouraging <euthanasia>" that duke pulled out of the air. They're not suddenly going to throw the patient's interests out of the window entirely. quote> It's a leap, yeah, but not that big a leap. If they took a poll, I imagine they would find that the majority of Americans know someone whose health has been adversely impacted by how an HMO was being run. and I believe you could find a majority would agree with the statement "A doctor in an HMO would easily just let a patient die".quote> Yeah, unless your HMO's are truly on a third world level, I don't buy that you'd find a majority of people who would say "Yes, my insurance company is the only thing that's keeping my doctor from killing me." The incentives example duke gave assumes that : A. the doctor in the national system is only concerned with the governmental budget. and B. the doctor in the national system wouldn't see an adverse financial response to a high mortality rate. It's bare nonsense.

Originally posted by: Duke87 The problem really is that the UN doesn't have the power to impose documents like this on countries. Every country has their own way of doing things. Some grant more rights than others. But each is self governing, the UN doesn't have the authority to tell them they can't discriminate based on religion or gender (for instance). The UN can impose sanctions, but since one of the major "offending" countries is a major power with an army large enough to start World War III if they were provoked (namely, China), it's kind of hard to. So, this Declaration is little more than a nice looking piece of paper.quote> Yes, but then again it was never an actual treaty for that reason. It's on one hand a definition of terms like human rights that were used in the charter that the member states signed, making it one of the UN's founding documents, and on the other has become a part of customary international law. While not always and entirely enforceable, it enumerates ideas that most of the world can agree on are decent.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek Originally posted by: JanYpe Originally posted by: Duke87 The problem, of course, comes with the issue of provoking and encouraging people to do it. In a National healthcare system, there would certainly be cause for doctors to do that since it would save them the bother of having to continue treating the patient and would save the government money. In a system where if they die, the doctor stops getting paid by them/their insurance company... then it's not so much of an issue since there's incentive for them not to do it and in fact is incentive for them to encourage patients not to die. quote> Unsubstantiated sillyness. There is still such a thing as the Hippocratic oath, and the fact that doctors aren't actually refraining from killing patients left and right just because they might get into billing issues. This isn't so much a hypothesis as the beginnings of a loony conspiracy theory. quote> Actually, it's experience with HMOs. (Health maintenance organizations) Time was that insurance plans over here provided patients with a large range of options and very little red tape in choosing doctors. Then came HMOs. The idea behind them isn't so bad. There is some logical in having a medical professional manage your care and determine what kind of doctor you need and so forth. In actual practice, most HMOs are perceived as being incompetent at best and downright evil at worst. The primary care doctor decides whether or not you can get a referral to go see a specialist or not. Nice concept but the HMOs set limits as to how many patients each doctor can refer in a given time period. If the doctor's limit is X and you happen to be patient X+1, too bad for you. A doctor in an HMO does have to carefully weigh how much the treatment will cost and whether or not it is "worth it". A doctor in a traditional insurance plan has much wider parameters to work with. quote> It's a pretty big leap from the poorly set-up system that you mention to the the "provoking and encouraging <euthanasia>" that duke pulled out of the air. They're not suddenly going to throw the patient's interests out of the window entirely.

Originally posted by: fukuda These days, the only reason we go to school is to be successful later on in life. quote> I hope that there's still people who likes and pursues knowledge.... School is not only for being succesful in life.quote> ...history student checking in here. I'll probably count anything that doesn't involve being an assistant manager at McD's and sleeping in a cardboard box under a bridge as a win.

It's certainly morbid, but it's not like it's a gameshow being used to pump up ratings. I don't think shedding light on this with a documentary is such a bad idea. Originally posted by: Duke87 The problem, of course, comes with the issue of provoking and encouraging people to do it. In a National healthcare system, there would certainly be cause for doctors to do that since it would save them the bother of having to continue treating the patient and would save the government money. In a system where if they die, the doctor stops getting paid by them/their insurance company... then it's not so much of an issue since there's incentive for them not to do it and in fact is incentive for them to encourage patients not to die. quote> Unsubstantiated sillyness. There is still such a thing as the Hippocratic oath, and the fact that doctors aren't actually refraining from killing patients left and right just because they might get into billing issues. This isn't so much a hypothesis as the beginnings of a loony conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 well, why should we keep creationism if a majority of scientists and teachers don't believe it? It would be like teaching kids that 1+2=5. We no longer go to school for our morals and values, this is not the colonial times. These days, the only reason we go to school is to be successful later on in life. And I don't think getting an A in "AP Sinning and Forgiveness" is going to impress havard..[although Mississippi would be all over that...jk =P]quote>Because the people that decide on curriculum in some places apparently still believe that an explanation based on bronze age mythology is what their kids need to hear most of all.

David Bowie - Rebel Rebel Originally posted by: Duke87 Bachman Turner Overdrive - You Ain't Seen Nothing Yetquote> B-b-b-b-aby you just ain't seen n-n-n-nuthin' yet.

Originally posted by: Boggy1 Funnily enough, when I was searching for my Calligraphy Set, I pulled out a copy of the UN Deceleration of Human Rights. It was in a little leather-bound red book. No clue where it could've come from. quote>Your attic really is a treasure trove. Maybe the UN should boot out any member-country that doesn't comply with everysingle one of these Articles. Unfortunately, that would most likely result in a United Stations with no member Nations whatsoever. quote>The UN, where nations with no freedom of speech demand to be heard.

I love how the opposition gets all dramatically animated.

Youths threw petrol bombs, burned cars and smashed shop windows. quote> (repeat five times) Throwing molotov cocktails around as if they were candy is not protest, it's criminal. Throwing molotovs at the cops? Not the greatest idea you'll ever have.

Nice little neighbourhood that's growing there. Plenty of room for expansion from the looks of it.

You are a good negotiator. Not much of a warrior, but, what can you say? Can’t be all things to all people.quote> Good to see the SHT around again.

There's now a Simtropolis alliance, conveniently called Alliance Of Simtropolis, located on world 87 of Nationstates 2. I have invited one or two familiar names from the old region already, but the numbers will go up much faster if I don't have to hunt you all down. I've set myself up as El Presidente there for the moment, but you'll be able to overthrow me in a violent coup just as soon as we get this show on the road.