This is going to sound terrible, but.... (Kebir Blue)

Actually, Jason, you could feasibly commit a genocide on...

- The unemployed; boost your Welfare!
- Housewives;
- The disabled (the special clinics people, anyways);

God is intolerant. He is intolerant to all sin. And He has appointed a day in which He will judge that intolerance. The thing that amazes me is that so called Christians take that intolerance upon themselves and execute God's judgment for Him, ignorant of the fact that they too were once sinners appointed for the day of destruction. But God who is rich in mercy has delayed His just filled judgment to allow those who would hear His voice and obey it and turn from the things that defile man. A duty in which the true Christian perform. Christians are supposed to shine light on the mercy and grace of God and warn them of that appointed day in which God will judge the hearts of all men, not take it upon themselves to execute judgment, such has been the case throughout history. Folks, do not be deceived, everyone who names the name of Christ is not His.

You could but what would happen if you wanted to build more corps? No labor reserve.

That house wife...could be yours? That disabled person could very well be your son or daughter...then what?

+25 Respect Points, Jason :P

And lol @ "that house wife...could be yours"

And respect to you accordian for a well put argument.
As you are stating, I agree that these actions were taken through ignorance or for political or personal gain.
They were however committed under the guise of religion, the justification is/was freedom for the perpetrator to impose their ideals upon others of different beliefs. Please dont tell me you dont believe that to be true of the present world conflicts. Religion/sect whatever fighting each other, basically for control of the last of the oil, all under the flag of 'liberating' others from oppression and religious extremists.
Not much has changed since JC was crucified has it?

I think the UK HAS declared genocide on the dis-abled and unemployed. They are at the front line of the austerity cuts.

I'm not the most politically minded person here, but it seems to me that all we, as the United States, has gained from the Middle East conflicts is debt....and lots of it...trillions.

If we are going to rape and pillage these countries of their oil as everyone says, I wish we would do it soon...I can't afford these gas prices much longer.

;)

Crafty-- I think that most wars and other violence are fought for what we'd call economic reasons, not religious ones. One group wants what another has, or is defending their own against others, or wants to dominate trade in some region. A common religion binds a people together, and it's natural for people to use religious rhetoric to rally themselves and make the opposition seem immoral and reduce our inhibitions against fighting them. That doesn't mean that religion is the cause, just a rationalization.

Persians vs Greeks. Alexander the Great's wars of conquest. Romans vs Carthaginians. Roman conquests. All the wars fought by the ancient Chinese. Rome vs Germanic tribes. Huns vs Romans. Viking raids. England vs the Normans. Mongol conquests. England vs Spain. England vs France. A sampling of wars fought over no particular religious principles.

Look at wars in the 20th century. How many of these wars were fought because of religion? Relatively few. Massacres, forced starvations and deprivations, by totalitarian governments, killing millions...how many for religious reasons? Relatively few, and most of those to persecute and eliminate religions, as opposed to based on religious teachings as you said.

War in Iraq...based on religion? Not oil? Not for American hegemony? Not for security concerns? Not for military strategic concerns? Not for internal political reasons in the Western nations? Not to give democracy a foothold in the Middle East? But for religion?

Clashes of religions can make wars and other conflicts more vicious. So can clashes of political ideologies. I think the latter has tremendously more documentation of actually being a root cause of wars and other misery, apart from economics, than religion.

/vomits

What About Simocide on just the male folk and not the women folk. That way you would'nt cut off population growth in the way of breeding. Also Revelation is singular, no "s" at the end. Religion talks always end up with someone getting their skivies in a knot.

Ok, I'll concede to being intellectually out-gunned by you two.

I definitely see and agree with what you are saying Jojo, and I think my only defence can be, to quote you:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

and it's natural for people to use religious rhetoric to rally themselves and make the opposition seem immoral and reduce our inhibitions against fighting them. That doesn't mean that religion is the cause, just a rationalization.<!-/Quote-!>

This is an very interesting discussion for me, but we have a saying in England - "Never talk politics or religion in a pub", and I think that sound piece of advice should be extended to forums too.

Happy Easter to you both.

Oh, and sorry about hi-jacking (no pun intended) your thread billy-bob.

no problem crafty, also, please stop responding to religous posts that dont have anything the do with the idea of Simocide. That's the main point of this thread, not religion or God or the United States' fucked up foreign policy.

If you keep offering your unsolicited opinion on religion or foreign policy, people are going to respond.

For example:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

no problem crafty, also, please stop responding to religous posts that dont have anything the do with the idea of Simocide. That's the main point of this thread, not religion or God or the United States' fucked up foreign policy. <!-/Quote-!>

It is a point of debate whether US foreign policy is indeed screwed up . . . not a foregone conclusion. It is a point of debate whether religion (or lack thereof) breeds intolerance or tolerance . . . not a forgone conclusion. If you'd like to discuss something, it is best not to have opinions on unrelated matters for the course of the discussion.

excellent point, just trying to say we should stick to topic of Simocide.

Religion would have a profound effect on a President's decision to commit genocide. I don't see how the conversation doesn't end up becoming politics or religion or some screwed up variant of both.

politics, yes, but religion, no. only if you were one of the most hardcore christians, like ned flanders on the simpsons. lets face it, they DO NOT EXIST. its not even like the matrix, were everyone is a computer program but killing the program kills a real person. everyone of those "people" are just a handfull of ones and zeroes. It's like bringing religion into throwing a piece of wood into a fire.

WOOD HAS A SOUL TOO!

Just kidding.

Also, Team Jojo/Matt/EC! Thank God that ended quickly.

In regards to Sim-Genocide, I think it's a little bit of an iffy issue to allow genocide in a game. Even if you *are* only killing bits and bytes of code, allowing it is almost like condoning it, and that's certainly not a good thing. Remember that SC has a policy against "Nazi materials". If you can't call your President Hitler or your Empire "Third Reich", I don't think the GM is going to allow you to commit the same kind of act as Hitler.

Forgot about the no-Nazi stuff. You're probably right, although Hitler was killing because of religion and ethnicity. Since there isn't really any of that in SimCountry, they might be a slim chance of the allowing Simocide.

Billy Bob, (Lorelei yawns)..... let's talk about shoes instead. Now that is an exciting topic! :-)

The GMs don't allow Nazi images or names in SC because the company, and the server, are located in the Netherlands and it is illegal there to represent them. Therefore, if Nazi references were held on their server, they would be in contravention of the law.

If they were that worried about the concept of genocide, they wouldn't allow any names relating to war criminals or genocidal regimes, not just Nazis, and they probably wouldn't allow nukes.

Hugs and respect

Jo

I'm going to assume that was a joke Lorelei. Jo, genocide wasn't invented by the Nazi's. There are genocides now, there were other genocides besides the Nazi one in WW2 (Soviets created a famine in Ukraine), and there were tons of genocides before the Nazi's. Hitler actually got the idea of eugenics from American treatment towards the Native Americans. Yes, the Holocaust is the most famous and well known example of genocide, but is definitely not the first, last, or only one.

BB, you seem to have a problem with hearing what people are saying ...

For some reason you seemed to think, earlier in this debate, that I have some sort of religious affiliation, despite the fact that I hadn't posted anything about my own views. Now you seem to think that I need to be told that the Nazis are not the only ones who have committed genocide through the ages.

Neither could be further from the truth.

I am perfectly well aware of war crimes that have taken place both before and after those committed by Nazi Germany and, if you read my post carefully, you will realise that I said nothing at all about my personal views. I merely gave you some information about why the GMs might have banned Nazi images. In fact, I pointed out specifically that there have been other war criminals and genocidal regimes besides the Nazis.

You have started an interesting debate, but discussion is pointless if you don't listen.

Hugs and respect

Jo

Actually, I was serious. :S