DEC 2013 TS forum game archive

[JasonPratt]

Since we're getting kind of RPFish while waiting for Team America World Police... ;)

Yes, that sentiment from the Psalm, and that military command from an ancient Near Middle Eastern campaign, are morally reprehensible. (In the case of Numbers, the command was reprehensible even by the standards of the time and culture, preventing the troops from claiming any personal honor in the victory; in the case of the Psalm, it was probably a common feeling among people who had just been on the receiving end of such a campaign. Be that as it may.)

But I'm only in a position to coherently criticize them morally, if the one and only fundamental reality turns out to be, not only actively rational, but an actively rational interpersonal relationship of fair-togetherness between persons -- a reality that omnisciently and voluntarily sacrifices itself for the sake of creation, and so eternally shares the suffering of all victims of inadvertent natural behaviors and of all victims of intentional injustice.

And that isn't atheism, or pantheism, or a cosmological dualsm, or some kind of subordinate polytheism. That's a supernaturalistic theism -- and not just any supernat-theism either. It's at least binitarian theism, of a sort where the self-sacrificial action of the God Most High might be expected to show up sooner or later to be voluntarily slain in an unjust manner, not only by His own enemies, but by the enemies who should have been His biggest allies.

Which happens to be the kind of religion the people being morally criticized there, were slowly developing in the background, and which some of them eventually instigated outright a little less than 2000 years ago.

On any metaphysic less than that (even a mere moral theism), my grounds for morally criticizing them break down upon close examination, into mere expressions of my micro or micro-environmental conditioning (such as the feelings of my group), or at best the invented behavorial standards of myself or my group (possibly meaning the mere dictates of an ultimate personal authority whom I might pragmatically follow). In that case, I'm only different from those people (in some ways), not morally better for refusing and rejecting those sentiments and behaviors.

Whereas, if such a reality is true, then even people who don't believe such a reality is true can really be morally better for refusing and rejecting those sentiments and behaviors. :)


In the judgment of the sheep and the goats near the end of the Gospel According to Matthew, the baby goats, the least of the flock of the Messiah there in the scene, are the ones going into the unquenchable fire to be sick and hungry and thirsty and imprisoned outside, for regarding the least of the Messiah's flock as unworthy to feed, clothe, heal, invite in, etc., despite thinking they've been serving the Messiah all along. The sheep, or the mature flock in Greek, have been serving the Messiah all along by being merciful to the least of the Messiah's flock -- and didn't even know they had been serving the Messiah!

The parable, as usual, is a test for the audience: in this case, is the reader or hearer going to interpret the fate of the baby goats, the least of the Messiah's flock in the judgment, like one of the mature flock would, or the way a baby goat would?! It has to be said, the servants of the Messiah, before and after that parable was given, have tended to interpret that parable the way a baby goat would...  :P

But that puts us in the place of the baby goats being judged in the judgment: we're the ones under judgment, who are unmerciful to the least of the flock of the Messiah, while thinking ourselves the mature flock.

Which is why I agree with Uber's criticism. :) (And also because I'm a trinitarian theist.)

[BanzaiCat]

Am I the only one that saw "P'Shah" as a pun on 'Pshaw' and 'Shah' - as in the Shah of Iran, whom technically I think was in power at the time of this game turn?

Well, probably not, considering how people 'round here avoid that crap like the plague. THE PLAGUE OF FROGS!

Ahem...sorry. On to Capitalist pig bashing!

[undercovergeek]

Am I the only one that saw "P'Shah" as a pun on 'Pshaw' and 'Shah' - as in the Shah of Iran, whom technically I think was in power at the time of this game turn?

Well, probably not, considering how people 'round here avoid that crap like the plague. THE PLAGUE OF FROGS!

Ahem...sorry. On to Capitalist pig bashing!

2 of the weirdest posts back to back - one short, one long

[BanzaiCat]

Just tryin' to get into those siggy lines. A little cray-cray goes a long way-way.

[JasonPratt]

I have a mutant ability to write the shortest and the longest weird posts at will. :)


(And yes, I was punning Pshaw with the Shahs who tended to get involved with the Cold War. Reasonably enough, considering the Giant Touchy Bear on their north border.)

[Ubercat]

Am I the only one that saw "P'Shah" as a pun on 'Pshaw' and 'Shah' - as in the Shah of Iran, whom technically I think was in power at the time of this game turn?

Well, probably not, considering how people 'round here avoid that crap like the plague. THE PLAGUE OF FROGS!

Ahem...sorry. On to Capitalist pig bashing!

Um.. no. ;)

I see what you did there!

[Ubercat]

Since we're getting kind of RPFish while waiting for Team America World Police... ;)

Yes, that sentiment from the Psalm, and that military command from an ancient Near Middle Eastern campaign, are morally reprehensible. (In the case of Numbers, the command was reprehensible even by the standards of the time and culture, preventing the troops from claiming any personal honor in the victory; in the case of the Psalm, it was probably a common feeling among people who had just been on the receiving end of such a campaign. Be that as it may

I don't concern myself with the justness or injustice of the behavior of the ancient Israelite's anymore than I do that of any other long vanished culture, other than as a curiosity. My only beef is with the moral bankruptcy of the supposed supreme authority credited with being behind the bible.

But I'm only in a position to coherently criticize them morally, if the one and only fundamental reality turns out to be, not only actively rational, but an actively rational interpersonal relationship of fair-togetherness between persons -- a reality that omnisciently and voluntarily sacrifices itself for the sake of creation, and so eternally shares the suffering of all victims of inadvertent natural behaviors and of all victims of intentional injustice.

Now you sound a bit like you're channeling the very noble, but ultimately misguided goals of the human descendants from half a million years in our future, written about in some of the books of Stephen Baxters epic science fiction Xeelee sequence of books. A great series, breathtaking in it's sheer scope. Our human successors, in possession of time travel technology and many other amazing powers, wanted to alter the past and eliminate all unnecessary suffering. For all their power, they are not the greatest beings in the universe and never can be! Anyway, those far future do gooders are only a small bit of the story, limited to 1 or 2 books.

And that isn't atheism, or pantheism, or a cosmological dualsm, or some kind of subordinate polytheism. That's a supernaturalistic theism -- and not just any supernat-theism either. It's at least binitarian theism, of a sort where the self-sacrificial action of the God Most High might be expected to show up sooner or later to be voluntarily slain in an unjust manner, not only by His own enemies, but by the enemies who should have been His biggest allies.

Which happens to be the kind of religion the people being morally criticized there, were slowly developing in the background, and which some of them eventually instigated outright a little less than 2000 years ago.

Yes, it's ironic that Gods morality slowly changes over time to precisely match that of his followers.

On any metaphysic less than that (even a mere moral theism), my grounds for morally criticizing them break down upon close examination, into mere expressions of my micro or micro-environmental conditioning (such as the feelings of my group), or at best the invented behavorial standards of myself or my group (possibly meaning the mere dictates of an ultimate personal authority whom I might pragmatically follow). In that case, I'm only different from those people (in some ways), not morally better for refusing and rejecting those sentiments and behaviors.

I think that you're a primate, just like the rest of us. You don't eat babies of your own species any more than most animals don't, and for the same reasons. You don't need a fear of Hell to mostly behave in ways that have an overall benefit for your society.

Whereas, if such a reality is true, then even people who don't believe such a reality is true can really be morally better for refusing and rejecting those sentiments and behaviors. :)

I *think* I agree.

In the judgment of the sheep and the goats near the end of the Gospel According to Matthew, the baby goats, the least of the flock of the Messiah there in the scene, are the ones going into the unquenchable fire to be sick and hungry and thirsty and imprisoned outside, for regarding the least of the Messiah's flock as unworthy to feed, clothe, heal, invite in, etc., despite thinking they've been serving the Messiah all along. The sheep, or the mature flock in Greek, have been serving the Messiah all along by being merciful to the least of the Messiah's flock -- and didn't even know they had been serving the Messiah!

The parable, as usual, is a test for the audience: in this case, is the reader or hearer going to interpret the fate of the baby goats, the least of the Messiah's flock in the judgment, like one of the mature flock would, or the way a baby goat would?! It has to be said, the servants of the Messiah, before and after that parable was given, have tended to interpret that parable the way a baby goat would...  :P

But that puts us in the place of the baby goats being judged in the judgment: we're the ones under judgment, who are unmerciful to the least of the flock of the Messiah, while thinking ourselves the mature flock.

Which is why I agree with Uber's criticism. :) (And also because I'm a trinitarian theist.)

That was a massive post with a lot to digest. I react with fear and trembling when I reflect that you might not have been an experienced author, in which case you might not have made such good use of paragraphs. (Can you imagine THAT wall of text?  :o)

[Staggerwing]

Uncle Joe must be sooo confused by now...  ???

[bob48]

...he aint the only one. There again, I live in a perpetual state of confusion.

[GJK]

[GJK]

Finishing up the USSR portion of Round 6, Team USA has elected to play their 1 OP pt to place influence in the Gulf States.  The current situation in the Middle East is as such:



For the USA portion of Round 6, Team USA has elected to play the "Comecon" card on the Space Race track. The results are below:

*** American plays COMECON* in the Space Race for 3 Ops.
* U.S. Die = [4] *** <American>
* Space Race attempt not successful.

This will conclude Game Turn 1! 

This was the end results for the turn:

*** U.S. did not perform enough Military Operations ***
* U.S. player penalized 2 VPs.
* American changes Soviet Military Ops to 0.
* American changes American Military Ops to 0.
* Soviets gain 2 VPs.
* American changes VPs to 10 Soviet Victory Points.
* American changes DefCon to 5.
* Coups and realignments now allowed in Europe.
* American player deals cards.
* American player updated turn to Turn 2; Headline Phase

The new hands have been dealt and those will be uploaded to your private forums shortly.

Both teams are on the clock now in order to decide their HEADLINE PHASE card play for the start of Turn 2.

The current map can be seen here:  http://www.garykrockover.com/TS/Twilight_Struggle_Map.jpg

Good luck in Turn 2 gentlemen!

[GJK]

Comrades, here is your hand for the start of Turn 2, Headline Phase.  Choose wisely!

[GJK]

Gentlemen, here is your hand for the start of Turn 2, Headline Phase.  May the force be with you....

[Barthheart]

US rocket go boom! Woohoo!  ;D

10 VP's! Woohoo!  8)

Go Commies!  :D

[Barthheart]

WOW! Cool hand..... what to do first?   ???