Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 1264 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
gaelgouma665 (0 DX)
01 Jul 15 UTC
Buy Real Passports,ID Cards,Driver's Licenses,Fake Money,SSN,Visas,Diplomas
Silenced spammer
1 reply
Open
steephie22 (182 D(S))
30 Jun 15 UTC
Fun Fact
Lots of people assume I'm a musician due to the way I look. Compliment? Insult? Fun fact for sure!

Perhaps I should either get a haircut or become a musician/singer, so no mistakes are made :-)
24 replies
Open
BluJayWarrior (100 D)
30 Jun 15 UTC
Game Processing Down, and I Have a Live Game
So, during the problem maintenance, I joined a live game that should've started an hour ago, so I've been waiting for the game to start. Anyone know what will happen once things get working again?
2 replies
Open
wjessop (100 DX)
27 Jun 15 UTC
Star Wars Discussion
The Force Awakens looms. And, after I just rewatched Star Wars Phantom Menace, wondering people's thoughts. Favourite film? Is Phantom Menace full of racism? Are the prequel trilogy really much worse than the original trilogy?
41 replies
Open
A_Tin_Can (2234 D)
22 Jun 15 UTC
Melbourne Diplomacy Championships 3-5th July
This is in two weeks in Melbourne, Australia! Come be crowned the Victorian Champion! PM me for details, or join the Australia/New Zealand email list:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/daanz-dip
4 replies
Open
A_Tin_Can (2234 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
Definitions
I'm working on some statistics reporting for webdip, and I'm interested in what the forum thinks: Are "Gunboat" games just games with no messaging, or are they games with no messaging that are also anonymous?
19 replies
Open
Thucydides (864 D(B))
29 Jun 15 UTC
Abraham Lincoln, anti-oligarchist:
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy."
11 replies
Open
Kusiag (1443 D)
29 Jun 15 UTC
Need 2 players!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=163269
0 replies
Open
A_Tin_Can (2234 D)
26 Jun 15 UTC
Lusthog history
Does anyone know where the Lusthog diplomacy variant came from? I can't find references to it outside of webdiplomacy- is it an in-house invention? Who gets the credit?
14 replies
Open
Chumbles (791 D(S))
28 Jun 15 UTC
Drowning not waving ...
I think there is scope for helping new players.
61 replies
Open
tvrocks (388 D)
29 Jun 15 UTC
Rainbow facebook friends
so, i have looked through my friendlis and out of around 98 people, i only have 2 people who have rainbow picks. I am in the center of utah in a community of around 70% mormons, so mine is probably way lower than average. I want to compare it to how off from the usual it is, so how many rainbow friends do you have?
18 replies
Open
ILN (100 D)
29 Jun 15 UTC
Village creates own currency, moscow buthurt
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/06/anger-moscow-russian-village-prints-currency-150628143029075.html
5 replies
Open
steephie22 (182 D(S))
28 Jun 15 UTC
Can someone with a perma-silence reply to my PM?
What it says on the tin.
40 replies
Open
Tolstoy (1962 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+2)
The Battle For Marriage Equality Must Continue
There is still one large group of people whose marriages are not recognized because of discrimination that has a long and ugly history
Page 1 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Tolstoy (1962 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+3)
While we celebrate the victory today, it is important to remember that tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans still face a very real threat of imprisonment and other punishment (including having their children kidnapped and farmed out to the 'foster care' system by CPS goons) because their marriages are not government approved as they involve more than two parties. I hope we will all continue to work torwards and celebrate the day when everyone may be assured that their domestic warrangements are secure from discrimination, and not give up simply because polygamists aren't as "cool" as gays are.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+2)
Do you think there should be a limit to how many people a person can marry?
Wusti (725 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
Are you a Mormon Tolstoy? Moslem?
Chaqa (3971 D(B))
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+10)
Who the hell spells it "Moslem"? Are you from 1920s England?
Durga (3609 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
I agree Tolstoy, the state should let me have the 3-4 husbands I want. That's all I'm asking for, I'm not so needy. Who am I harming? Clearly the majority of polygamist situations are consented to, right? Right????
Tolstoy (1962 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
"Do you think there should be a limit to how many people a person can marry?"

Perhaps. But that is not for the government to determine. A marriage is a contract between two (or more) people. The state should not be involved. It doesn't have the intelligence to know the right number of marriage partners any more than it could know whether or not it's a good idea for John to marry Jane (or Joe).

"Are you a Mormon Tolstoy? Moslem?"

Why do I have to be a Mormon or Muslim to care about equal protection under the law?
OutsideSmoker27 (204 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
Thank you, Tolstoy. Here's a good piece on the topic. The author is trained in rhetoric and language rather than in law, but it makes what I think is a fair argument:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html

I will maintain that, if anyone opposes polygamy but supports same-sex marriage between two and only two people, then that person is NOT committed to fundamental equality in marriage. Any argument that polygamous marriages are difficult to imagine or administer on a practical level ("can you imagine the cost and burden of extending marriage benefits to groups of more than two people?") or that they are deprecated ("that's not what marriage is" or even "ewwwww") and questions like "what are you? Mormon?" prove this.

Also, arguments that polygamous marriage is *by default* unequal and prejudicial to women are narrow-minded in assuming that polygamy must consist of a single man married to (and presumably lording it over) multiple wives. It completely ignores the potential that (for example) one woman could be married to multiple husbands, or that two women and two men could all be mutually married to each other.

If the right to marry is as fundamental as the SCOTUS has declared that it is, and as many other governments around the world have affirmed, then it is hard to see how consensual polygamy could be denied state recognition without violating the 14th Amendment -- other than with resort to some argument that marriage actually ISN'T quite as fundamental a right as Obergefell v. Hodges says it is or some silly argument like "but see, this opinion talked explicitly about two-person unions, you moron!"

I'm not sure what the constitutional or jurisprudential arrangements are elsewhere, but I stand by my view that you are a hypocrite if you claim that same-sex marriage among consenting adults must, under principles of equal access to marriage, be recognized while at the same time you reject legal recognition of marriage between more than 2 people.
OutsideSmoker27 (204 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
Put another way, what is/are the reason(s) why "individuals in plural unions" should, as a matter of fundamental principle, NOT be substitutable for "same-sex couples" and for "gays and lesbians" in this excerpt from the Obergefell decision?

"It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry."
Wusti (725 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+2)
I asked if he was a MOSLEM (fuck off Chaqa - Im worse than 1920s England - Im Aussie so suck on it), or a Mormon, to ascertain whether or not there was a religious basis for supporting polygamy - or a purely Social Justice basis. There was no implied bias in the question - just curiosity.

Now can all you discrimination hunters fuck off and let him answer the question?
fiedler (1293 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
I once brought up my wish to marry my dog and was cruelly mocked and shouted down by the bigoted virginal lunatics that infest this forum at times.

These wounds will never heal.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
Pretty simple why plural marriage isn't allowed in the United States: the legal code isn't set up to handle it. AFAIK, we've always been a binary marriage nation.

That could change. That might be the next frontier. It would require a significant rewrite of the legal code, much more than replacing "husband" and "wife" with "spouse."

Moral issues aside, that's why it isn't allowed.
Fluminator (1500 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
How about marriage to animals. Or incest marriages.
Fluminator (1500 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
That aside, I am so sick of talking about gays. Everywhere I go that's the topic right now.
Fluminator (1500 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+2)
Oh, it sounds like fiedler already beat me to the animal marriage thing.
I dunno. Some animals would probably be lower maintenance.
fiedler (1293 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
The crowd is maybe starting to catch on that *many* of the political gays are not really all about the civil rights, they are really all about attention whoring and feeling oh so special. Yes the reason no-one respects me and I don't get paid much is all the *prejudice*, otherwise I'm just perfect.

Me and my sexy dogs is a whole different thing.

I'm all for polygamist legal marriage. Then one day... oh glorious day!....

No seriously I am. Lol, as if matters what I think, a mere prince, genius and sex-mar-sheen.

That is all.

Fluminator. What a dumb name.
Jamiet99uk (808 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+2)
"political gays"

Who are they? People who are politically homosexual but romantically heterosexual?
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
If you don't want a gay conversation, don't have one.
fiedler (1293 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
Yes exactly Jamiet99uk.

No actually I formally retract all my previous opinions ever stated on this forum. I'm jumping on the 'anything-goes' bandwagon. Nothing but mindless approval for everything from here on out.

God save the Queen! (Oprahs the queen)
Chumbles (791 D(S))
27 Jun 15 UTC
Dunno really... stick a name on it and call it a bad thing. Why not simply have a legal bond that enshrines the commitment between an individual and another, allowing that each or either of them may also be part of a group, but only if all of said group(s) undertake the same commitments. So you can have one to many or many to one or many to many group bondings. Thus a ceremony for an existing 'polygamous' marriage would involve all parties in that group when another individual joins.
fiedler (1293 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
Yes I agree with sweet Chumbles. The argument of legal difficulty is not well supported. And how could anyone put a price on eliminating prejudice/dissent? I couldn't.
JamesYanik (548 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
This reminds me of Indiana Jones:
Religious box with killer ghosts? Classic.
Indian guy using magic to eat hearts? Not their best work.
Immortality via religious artifact? Love it.
Aliens? FUCK NOOOOOO

Rights for Blacks? Morally correct.
Voting for Women? Should have happened a while ago.
Homosexual Marriage? They're still human.
Polygamy? FUCK NOOOOOO


to be fair, the Crystal Skull had too much CGI, and Shia Labeouf is always crap.
JamesYanik (548 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
And I support 2 way polygamy. If a woman wants to marry 2+ men, it should be as legal as a man marrying 2+ women.

then again I'm atheist and ANTI-religion so I think marriage is unconstitutional since it gives benefits to people in a religion, (specifically the taxes) while unmarried people with children are somehow deemed less worthy. But no, pay 40,000+ for a wedding and 2,000+ for a ring. while you're at it, look up de beers diamond monopoly.

capitalism/religion LOVE IT - no refunds
2ndWhiteLine (2601 D(B))
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
"(specifically the taxes)"

lol. This is 100% wrong - ever hear of the marriage penalty? Being married sucks, tax-wise.
Chumbles (791 D(S))
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
Oh dear. The majority of marriages in the UK in 2014 (70%) were civil ceremonies. And less than half of all marriages were in either a place of worship or a registry office. Only 30% were religious and, having been 'civilly' married twice I can assure you that the civil ceremony is not religious! So, JY, the benefits, at least in the UK, are given to people who marry. The religious or other basis isn't relevant.
yassem (2533 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
Surely you do see the difference between allowing a man and a woman to marry, and allowing any two people to marry is not the same as the difference between allowing a man and a woman to marry, and allowing any group of people to marry.
Allowing any number of people to marry could lead to some really weird consequences. What should happen if someone clearly abuses this law, for example 15 000 people all get married? I mean, whatever limit you say there is for the number of people who can marry someone would just say it's discriminating. I mean, I see the reason, why gay marriages have been accepted but not polygamy, at least for now. Still, if it was up to me - I don't give a shit what arranges people want to live in, if a hundred people are in a relationship all of them should be able to receive the benefits that are granted to marriages. Maybe in like 2030?
yassem (2533 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
Additionally - does polygamy have a cool flag that facebook can offer to filter on your profile picture? Cause if it doesn't, I don't see much future for it.
Wusti (725 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
I confess to being forced to the sidelines on this one. On the one hand I find it offensive for a State to discriminate based on sexual predilection of any flavour (except of course those underage), ad the opinion that Marriage per se is a Religious rite and that religions should have the ultimate say on who gets to use it and who doesn't.
krellin (80 DX)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+2)
Krellin's Statement: For all of you "conservatives" in a mad panic...you know, you don't actually *have* to get "gay married" just because it's legal. Just like you don't have to drink alcohol and get drunk, or do other things you think are immoral but are legal. We don't actually live in a Theocracy...nor do you really want to, lest someone who doesn't share your faith get control of your government. The Constitution doesn't demand you act, it simply says what is allowable in a SECULAR society where everyone is treated equally. By the way...that same Equality that allows something you disagree with things...it is the same equality that let's all of you practice your particular brand of religion.

Bottom line is, government NEVER should have gotten involved in the marriage game to begin with...except it allows them to make revenue of marriage licenses, etc. etc etc.

Yawn.

Guess what...society is no more "moral" or "immoral" than it was yesterday, and how you live your life shouldn't change just because of a court decision.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
@JY: "then again I'm atheist and ANTI-religion so I think marriage is unconstitutional since it gives benefits to people in a religion"

Wrong. Marriage gives benefits, and most importantly legal status and protection, to people who are married. Religion doesn't factor into it unless you want it to.

@krellin: "Bottom line is, government NEVER should have gotten involved in the marriage game to begin with...except it allows them to make revenue of marriage licenses, etc. etc etc."

This is pathetically laughable. Marriage exists because it is the single most important long-term legal contract that two people typically enter into during their lifetimes. It unambiguously confers joint rights to property, legal power of attorney, medical power of attorney, government benefits, and parental rights (if any). People so frequently become lifelong couples who want to become responsible for each other that the concept of marriage is 100% necessary for society to function well. It makes no sense for each and every couple to re-invent the wheel with a different "pre-nuptial agreement" each time so the same template is used unless special circumstances warrant.
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
@wusti: "...the opinion that Marriage per se is a Religious rite and that religions should have the ultimate say on who gets to use it and who doesn't."

I also find this idea offensive (if this is indeed what you were getting at). Plus, it simply isn't true in non-theocracies.

Marriage licenses are issued by the secular state via an officer of the peace. They can be presented to couples by clergy at the conclusion of a religious wedding ceremony, but this is by no means required.

Page 1 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

108 replies
Ace881 (100 D)
28 Jun 15 UTC
Battle Of The Swords: gameID=163673
-One Day Phases And Starts At ~1:00

2 replies
Open
A_Tin_Can (2234 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+2)
More game statistics
See inside
26 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (808 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
How's this for a court ruling?
Since everyone is interested in court rulings today, here's an interesting one:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/dutch-government-ordered-cut-carbon-emissions-landmark-ruling
16 replies
Open
wawlam59 (0 DX)
26 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
Please Help
Need a dip map in high resolution
13 replies
Open
pangloss (363 D)
26 Jun 15 UTC
Cloudy with a Chance of Fire and Brimstone
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33290341
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Welcome to the 21st Century, America!
3 replies
Open
jibaba244 (0 DX)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+2)
+91-7726060256 girl vashikaran specialist baba ji
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
1 reply
Open
jibaba244 (0 DX)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+2)
+91-7726060256 love marriage specialist baba ji
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
0 replies
Open
jibaba244 (0 DX)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+2)
+91-7726060256 love problem solution baBA ji
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
0 replies
Open
yassem (2533 D)
27 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
Action Man
I think I'll just focus on digging up cool stuff on the internet:
http://battlefieldcasualties.co.uk/
This is one of the best social awareness videos (or whatever you call that kind of stuff). Strong.
Btw, 16-year-olds? Seriously? ._.
1 reply
Open
Lando Calrissian (100 D(S))
26 Jun 15 UTC
sitter needed
Can someone sit my account July 3-5?
9 replies
Open
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
24 Jun 15 UTC
(+2)
SS Does Boston F2F Live Blog!
Check here and @webdiplomacy for updates, pics, and play-by-plays!
70 replies
Open
ZS (211 D)
26 Jun 15 UTC
support move
if i do a support with B a move from territory A to C, and on the preview map it shows an black/grey arrow from A(north coast) to C and a red arrow from A to C, and the support from B is on the grey arrow, will the support fail?
Both units are armies
4 replies
Open
goldfinger0303 (3157 DMod)
24 Jun 15 UTC
The Leagues Discussion/Critique
I wanted to post this thread while the Leagues were still going and participants were checking the site. Basically I just want to know what you all think of the tournament and my job as a TD, in general.
23 replies
Open
Thick newbie
Is the password needed to join a game different to the password used to login? If so, where do I find it/set it?

Regards
8 replies
Open
KingCyrus (511 D)
22 Jun 15 UTC
(+1)
Riddle Me This
I recently saw this riddle and I thought it was a good few minutes of fun. Enjoy.

Please don't post the answer on the thread, but you can PM to verify if you got it right.
24 replies
Open
A_Tin_Can (2234 D)
23 Jun 15 UTC
We have around 31,000 Full Press classic games
How many would you say are WTA?

(other moderators are not allowed to answer, since I've already told them)
49 replies
Open
Page 1264 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top