Game 10

Firstly, thanks for the supportive comments   

Second, sorry, didn't mean to take our conversations down such a serious 21st C path...

I had seen the link Papa shared about the strange bunch on Orkney but they sum up Orkney (and in an attempt to lighten things up  ) those islands are a strange place, well they are far enough north to be getting on for if not 24-hour darkness in winter then "dusk at noon".  A friend used to live on the Isle of Sark in the Channel Islands and described it as "800 alcoholics clinging to a rock"...change the population size and that sums up Orkney   One of those "facts" I was told was that Orkney had the highest number of people per head done for speeding at 100 mph of anywhere in the UK...and this for a group of islands without  a single inch of dual carriageway...
I used to know a Catholic priest (or was he the Catholic priest?) in Orkney, a friend of a friend.  When ever I was in the islands, I went to see him with two bottles of single malt, he would then pull out two more bottles and we drank the night away...if you know your "Father Ted". he was a more PC version of Father Jack...up there normal behaviour rules do not apply!  
If you have ever seen the original film of "The Wicker Man", it was filmed in the south west of Scotland but set in islands like Orkney...

@Jason2, I don't really mind having this conversation. I hope it isn't bothering anyone.

Papa Clement wrote:
If as a society you attempt to redefine religion (or indeed any other aspect of life) against the beliefs of those who hold it then you are imposing uniformity upon them which they cannot accept.  That creates division by forcing conflict.

I think you lost me, because I don't think I'm following your point at all.

Who gets to define religion in your view, if not people for themselves?

Once upon a time, followers of Jupiter were offended by Christians and thought their faith false and an attack upon them. Then the Catholic church was offended by the remaining pagans, then by various heretics/schismatics, then by the protestants. Then mainstream protestants were offended by puritans. Then US evangelicals were offended by various new religions. The process never stops. It happened in the east as well, but these examples are perhaps better known to us in the west.

New faiths emerge that are rejected by existing faiths. Everyone in this chain insisted that somebody else's faith wasn't good or real. It may well be those who call themselves Jedi aren't being serious, but then lots of people who proclaim an existing faith aren't serious about that faith either.

But, people who have faith don't get to decide what other people get to believe. If somebody else's belief, or lack thereof, offends someone, that, I believe, should be their problem.

Society isn't 'redefining' these things. People are making their own choices as they always have. Those choices in aggregate make society. Society is everchanging because the choices we collectively make about faith, government, morals, science all are in constant motion.

Some people feel that others rejecting their faith or perspective is a personal attack. I feel bad for those people whose convictions are so weak that others views threaten them, but that too is their problem and nobody else's. If someone's faith/life cannot stand the presence of unbelievers or those with different views, then it isn't a very strong faith, is it?

Religion, by its very nature, rejects other explanations for existence. Therefore, inherently, religions don't get along with each other.

Because they all believe they have the answer, and other religions are wrong. It is the nature of the thing.

Papa Clement wrote:
What is philosophically wrong and somewhat impractical is to try to redefine religion as a subset of aetheism for one cannot subsist within the other.  The analogy is that you would not go to a doctor and ask him to check whether you had cancer if that doctor refused to believe cancer existed.  Unbelief cannot be equated with belief.  It does not follow that only those who believe can discuss a particular subject, but there has to be a common acceptance of concepts for the discussion to happen.  Without that there is inevitably discord.

If you disagree with me, then that is your choice.

Sorry, I have no idea where this is coming from, nor the point you are making. Atheism rejects religious explanations for the great unknowns. All religions reject all explanations that aren't theirs, including atheism. None of these are compatible with any others by their nature. It isn't religion against atheism. It's all of them against all of them.

Jason2 wrote:Firstly, thanks for the supportive comments   

No problem.  

Jason2 wrote:Second, sorry, didn't mean to take our conversations down such a serious 21st C path...

Wasn't my intention either, just something that struck me when I remembered the Orkney link.

I'd never heard of them and found it curious how they could have managed to get themselves excommunicated.  But having started to read through their declaration its approach/methodology was so obviously wrong and seemed to be precisely the same kind of thing which chimed with Deacon's original observation: "It is always interesting to me how people feel the need to believe certain things about history to live with themselves in the present."

They quoted odd sentences from what Pope Francis (may have) said to particular audiences out of context, contrasting it with official teachings (again out of context) or Scripture (again isolated passages) to vent their frustrations.  A couple of the points may have some force if they had been made in a structured manner, but they were not really interested in making serious points.  They should know that every time the Pope opens his mouth he is not saying something which defines doctrine!  So to me the whole thing was rather ridiculous.  Given your comments on the level of alcohol consumption on Orkney, one does have to wonder if they were  

Deacon wrote:I think you lost me, because I don't think I'm following your point at all.

I don't think you're following my point at all either, and the more I try to explain it, the further away from it you are moving.  Go back to post.1075: I was attempting to describe why (I think) when some modern philosophies change the meaning of words they introduce logically contradictory paradigms that are invalid to those who hold the beliefs embodied in those words.  This does not aid understanding or help resolve conflict, it does the opposite because it replaces the meaning (sense) from the word rendering meaningful communication impossible.

Hence my example of the doctor: for a doctor and patient to discuss cancer it is necessary for both doctor and patient to believe that cancer (as a condition) exists.  If the patient doesn't believe cancer exists (as a condition) then how does the doctor convince him he has it?  If the doctor doesn't believe cancer exists (as a condition) then he will describe the symptoms as something else or ignore them.  That neither may have a complete understanding of cancer won't stop them having a meaningful discussion; but that meaningful discussion cannot happen if one of them does not believe the subject (cancer) exists.

Unbelief is not a belief in something, but a denial of belief, an absence of belief.  Belief can never depend on unbelief, but unbelief (as a rejection of belief) does depend on belief.

Consequently to discuss unbelief it is first necessary to acknowledge belief (however imperfect our understanding of the details of that belief may be).

If the effect of changing the meaning of a word is to equate unbelief with belief, then it is logically inconsistent and a false basis for discussion.

This is a point of philosophy with applications to language.  It has obvious applications to religion as well, but that is secondary.  From your other comments you seem to have gone off on a religious tangent which is probably why you lost the point.

Ah. I think I see what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying.

I don't happen to agree, but I see what you're saying.

I am an atheist not because I reject belief, but because I see no evidence that would cause me to believe. My 'unbelief' doesn't reject belief, it merely says "I see no reason to believe that." Buddha. Christ. Krishna. Jupiter. Mohammed. I see no evidence to support their claims of supernatural wisdom. I can, and do, appreciate their moral philosophy, but that is distinct from believing that my eternal essence will be exalted if only I do exactly what they tell me.

I would, of course, be happy to be wrong. Who isn't enticed by the idea of an eternity of joy? But then, I think that's rather the point of the promise of it.

I have friends who are quite devout (a benedictine oblate comes to mind), and I'm happy it works for them. It doesn't for me.

But, to your point, there is a class of atheist who aren't really atheists to me. They're people who are mad at a god they claim they don't believe in. That just seems odd to me. I think they muddy the waters a fair bit for themselves and the rest of us because their rejection does take on the characteristics of a negative belief. You can't prove a negative really, so you can't really be an atheist proper and say God doesn't exist. The best you can manage is that there is no evidence for the existence of God that you have found credible. That's where I am. Maybe someday that evidence will arise. I doubt it, but I remain open to the possibility.

But as someone who doesn't happen to believe, I have some sympathy because so often those whose faith tells them to be kind to others fail utterly at that when those others don't toe their imaginary lines. That can make someone a tad snarky.

I'll leave it there, since this seems to have been a mostly a misunderstanding and not really a relevant game discussion anyway.

I wanted to note a lot of slave raids were historically in southern Abyssinia among the heathen subjects the move in the Empire was to defend subjects of the Empire from being abducted and move to reduce the demand for slaves from Africa along the same lines. A rulers highest duty is to protect their subjects isn't it?

tkolter wrote:I wanted to note a lot of slave raids were historically in southern Abyssinia among the heathen subjects the move in the Empire was to defend subjects of the Empire from being abducted and move to reduce the demand for slaves from Africa along the same lines. A rulers highest duty is to protect their subjects isn't it?

I think a number of historical rulers would have disagreed with you. Some thought their job was to make themselves great. Others thought it was to make their nation great. Others thought it was to indulge their whims because divine providence placed them on the throne. I think Government FOR the people is more of a modern idea, but perhaps those with better grounding in the history of government can comment.

Well the people if happy and provided for increases stability and reduces the chance of unrest with other considerations like protecting subjects so they can be productive. How many peasant and serf uprisings were there in just Europe so reducing such threats makes sense. In addition many African leaders are the fathers and mothers of their people more traditionally the more modern views were less common. There were exceptions of course such as Muslim run kingdoms.

Oh, You're right, I agree. I just think in this period that view wasn't necessarily common. The divine rights of kings is still a powerful force in the game period. There were plenty of rulers, of course, who wanted to build up their nations, and did so, but there were plenty who were very much interested only in their own persons.

In game 8, I watch the income of the peasants on the annual income statement. If I'm making good progress with their income, I consider myself a good king. The church and the nobles always find a way to take care of themselves.

God is my leaders example when His people were enslaved He came forward to free and protect them, His nation guards the Ark and He will judge how my leader ruled and so he tries to be a good father of all his subjects. And his wife is their mother. Of course like other kings God will want him to live as a ruler. God will remove him as He wills it to be my ruler is not THE KING.

And so G10 hits us...

...excuse while I pour myself a very large whisky at still being incredibly honourable...    i just hope no one suffered any side-effects after all that haggis..

...and you have to feel sorry for French sailors...in  G8 they get pissed on, in G10 they die from lightening strikes...maybe they need to seek alternative employment with a greater life expectancy...in the Russian Navy

Just in case anyone has an interest in G10 Africa... The latest newspaper has items for Accra and Umtali, but the headings have got swapped. Read them under the right heading and they make more sense!

Jason2 wrote:And so G10 hits us...

...excuse while I pour myself a very large whisky at still being incredibly honourable...    i just hope no one suffered any side-effects after all that haggis..

...and you have to feel sorry for French sailors...in  G8 they get pissed on, in G10 they die from lightening strikes...maybe they need to seek alternative employment with a greater life expectancy...in the Russian Navy

Quite happy with G10 newspaper reports of only one lost ship for the entire of 1703, might get more adventurous in 1704 and leave the White Sea. No wait, that's how we lost the one ship...

An interestingly amusing turn. 2nd French Admiral to die of natural (?) causes in G10, in two months. I think both would have much preferred a stream of hot piss from the Sieur de Gue.

Several concerned speeches on potential Jacobite conspiracy, while Calais is festooned with Jacobite flags. Grand Wizzy Wizzard confirms that 50 Corsairs cannot lie.

Italian Front eases off for the winter, apart from in the Doge's boudoir, where the campaign hots up. Eastern France burns some more, with Hungarian Hussars in the spotlight. Some cheeky monkey continues to suggest that the French counter-attack is being delayed by the Grand Dauphin's military shortcomings.

Another ‘Rodders’ steps up for the Spanish Crown.

Odds on John Stirling & the Jacobite Legal Triumvirate exchange non-apologies & accept internship applications.

Umtali’s answer to Hawaii 5-O face an investigatory dead end, as the prime suspect appears to be off with the pixies. Is it just me thinking, ‘you are in the right game, my pixie chasing chum…’

Thanks Revenant, I thought I was tired and confused when reading the African news...maybe I still was!

Marshal, it does seem whenever I move anything it goes wrong...as long as all my units stay at home they are safe

Kerensky, I'm afraid Mr Stirling is far too busy to work for Huff, Puff and Stuff as he is preparing the Rapid Reaction Squadron of the Royal Corps of Scottish Lawyers for a trip to Calais...not so much a "booze cruise" as a "serve writs on anyone bloody vaguely related to the Stuart vagabonds cruise".  As to his apology, the sci-fi fans among you might be interested to know he took inspiration from a certain Captain John Sheridan...
I think the Rozwi need to recruit the ancestor of a certain Mr Gene Hunt to further their investigations...
Given the Doge's Boudoir, I wonder if Lord Melville should take a mistress...someone inspired by Amy Pond perhaps...

Jason2 wrote:Thanks Revenant, I thought I was tired and confused when reading the African news...maybe I still was!

Marshal, it does seem whenever I move anything it goes wrong...as long as all my units stay at home they are safe

Kerensky, I'm afraid Mr Stirling is far too busy to work for Huff, Puff and Stuff as he is preparing the Rapid Reaction Squadron of the Royal Corps of Scottish Lawyers for a trip to Calais...not so much a "booze cruise" as a "serve writs on anyone bloody vaguely related to the Stuart vagabonds cruise".  As to his apology, the sci-fi fans among you might be interested to know he took inspiration from a certain Captain John Sheridan...
I think the Rozwi need to recruit the ancestor of a certain Mr Gene Hunt to further their investigations...
Given the Doge's Boudoir, I wonder if Lord Melville should take a mistress...someone inspired by Amy Pond perhaps...

To really put Lord Melville on a par with the Doge of Genoa perhaps a mistress inspired by Janet Douglas, Lady Glamis or Janet Horne daughter (the convicted one who escaped and abandoned her poor old mum) ???

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Jason2 wrote:Thanks Revenant, I thought I was tired and confused when reading the African news...maybe I still was!

Marshal, it does seem whenever I move anything it goes wrong...as long as all my units stay at home they are safe

Kerensky, I'm afraid Mr Stirling is far too busy to work for Huff, Puff and Stuff as he is preparing the Rapid Reaction Squadron of the Royal Corps of Scottish Lawyers for a trip to Calais...not so much a "booze cruise" as a "serve writs on anyone bloody vaguely related to the Stuart vagabonds cruise".  As to his apology, the sci-fi fans among you might be interested to know he took inspiration from a certain Captain John Sheridan...
I think the Rozwi need to recruit the ancestor of a certain Mr Gene Hunt to further their investigations...
Given the Doge's Boudoir, I wonder if Lord Melville should take a mistress...someone inspired by Amy Pond perhaps...

To really put Lord Melville on a par with the Doge of Genoa perhaps a mistress inspired by Janet Douglas, Lady Glamis or Janet Horne daughter (the convicted one who escaped and abandoned her poor old mum) ???

I was thinking of giving Lord Melville a "fun" mistress   not a witchy one!  (e.g. the sort of ex I would like to have had, not the sort of ex I've had  )  Besides Lord Melville is ushering in the Scottish Enlightenment, a cute redhead mistress is in-keeping,  a witch...not so

Jason2 wrote:
I was thinking of giving Lord Melville a "fun" mistress   not a witchy one!  (e.g. the sort of ex I would like to have had, not the sort of ex I've had  )  Besides Lord Melville is ushering in the Scottish Enlightenment, a cute redhead mistress is in-keeping,  a witch...not so

But think of the advantages of having a "witchy mistress":

- Scotlands status in Africa would increase.

- Joining the "Excommunicated by the Pope Club" will cause your status to rocket esp with the Orange Order, Glasgow Rangers support and other foes of the Papist Anti Christ in Scotland.

Finally everyone would know who to blame the next time they are hit of lightning or sickness.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Jason2 wrote:
I was thinking of giving Lord Melville a "fun" mistress   not a witchy one!  (e.g. the sort of ex I would like to have had, not the sort of ex I've had  )  Besides Lord Melville is ushering in the Scottish Enlightenment, a cute redhead mistress is in-keeping,  a witch...not so

But think of the advantages of having a "witchy mistress":

- Scotlands status in Africa would increase.

- Joining the "Excommunicated by the Pope Club" will cause your status to rocket esp with the Orange Order, Glasgow Rangers support and other foes of the Papist Anti Christ in Scotland.

Finally everyone would know who to blame the next time they are hit of lightning or sickness.

Surely the first step in the Scottish Enlightenment will be when Lord Melville embraces the Catholic faith and invites lots of Catholic Jacobite Highland Chieftains into his government. Bringing Scotland into the Catholic flock would be the most enlightened thing Lord Melville has ever done, and just think how much fun he could have making speeches at Tivoli?

Papa Clement wrote:

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Jason2 wrote:
I was thinking of giving Lord Melville a "fun" mistress   not a witchy one!  (e.g. the sort of ex I would like to have had, not the sort of ex I've had  )  Besides Lord Melville is ushering in the Scottish Enlightenment, a cute redhead mistress is in-keeping,  a witch...not so

But think of the advantages of having a "witchy mistress":

- Scotlands status in Africa would increase.

- Joining the "Excommunicated by the Pope Club" will cause your status to rocket esp with the Orange Order, Glasgow Rangers support and other foes of the Papist Anti Christ in Scotland.

Finally everyone would know who to blame the next time they are hit of lightning or sickness.  

Surely the first step in the Scottish Enlightenment will be when Lord Melville embraces the Catholic faith and invites lots of Catholic Jacobite Highland Chieftains into his government.  Bringing Scotland into the Catholic flock would be the most enlightened thing Lord Melville has ever done, and just think how much fun he could have making speeches at Tivoli?

So Melville needs to convert to Catholicism, take a witchy mistress and get excommunicated?

All sounds a lot of hard work...think we'll stick with Protestantism and an 18th C Amy Pond...

Jason2 wrote:

Papa Clement wrote:

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Jason2 wrote:
I was thinking of giving Lord Melville a "fun" mistress   not a witchy one!  (e.g. the sort of ex I would like to have had, not the sort of ex I've had  )  Besides Lord Melville is ushering in the Scottish Enlightenment, a cute redhead mistress is in-keeping,  a witch...not so

But think of the advantages of having a "witchy mistress":

- Scotlands status in Africa would increase.

- Joining the "Excommunicated by the Pope Club" will cause your status to rocket esp with the Orange Order, Glasgow Rangers support and other foes of the Papist Anti Christ in Scotland.

Finally everyone would know who to blame the next time they are hit of lightning or sickness.  

Surely the first step in the Scottish Enlightenment will be when Lord Melville embraces the Catholic faith and invites lots of Catholic Jacobite Highland Chieftains into his government.  Bringing Scotland into the Catholic flock would be the most enlightened thing Lord Melville has ever done, and just think how much fun he could have making speeches at Tivoli?

So Melville needs to convert to Catholicism, take a witchy mistress and get excommunicated?

All sounds a lot of hard work...think we'll stick with Protestantism and an 18th C Amy Pond...

Don't know who Amy Pond is, but I suspect any mistress, witchy or otherwise, is likely to be hard work.

It may be a surprising revelation, but millions of Catholics manage to live quite happy lives without being excommunicated, so I can assure you it is possible. And Lord Melville would surely find no better way to end a Jacobite rebellion before it starts than by converting and joining the Catholic enlightenment. Thinking of it the other way, would it not be hard to claim Scotland is enlightened if it condones not just slavery, but also witchcraft and debauchery? Imagine what the Grand Wizzzy Wizzzzzzard would make of that?

You want Melville to denounce debauchery...in 18th Century Scotland? 

Well, that's one way to unite the Jacobites, Williamites, Lowlanders and Highlanders...against him...

Melville will stay nicely Williamite and Protestant...

Well, you're at the top of the honour list so you must be doing something right. For now!

As a player who champions historical realism, I disagree with your analysis. But I can see that the idea of upholding a high moral standard in Calvinist parts of Scotland gives you a dilemma. On one level the extreme religious puritan types embraced a stultifying austerity that spread misery. Own view is that they thought if they could be more miserable than the weather then it made living in Scotland more bearable. One of the reasons James I/VI had so many problems was that the type of religious fruitcake he had to deal with in Scotland was so much worse than those he met in England, so by trying to accommodate what was normal in England, he was condemned as having Catholic sympathies in Scotland. Yet of course to a Catholic he was considered as encouraging the puritans.

I wasn't making a political point about changing Lord Melville's allegiance to William, just observing that with a Catholic enlightenment taking hold in the non-excommunicated parts of Italy, it would be nice to have the Scots joining in.

Of course if the Catholic Jacobites Clan Chiefs follow our example, then it may well be that by excluding such wise people from government, the real Scottish enlightenment takes hold in the Highlands?

Papa Clement wrote:
Don't know who Amy Pond is, but I suspect any mistress, witchy or otherwise, is likely to be hard work.

Who would have thought Amy Pond would have a wiki page? Amy Pond on Wikipedia

Marshal Bombast wrote:

Papa Clement wrote:
Don't know who Amy Pond is, but I suspect any mistress, witchy or otherwise, is likely to be hard work.

Who would have thought Amy Pond would have a wiki page? Amy Pond on Wikipedia

Thanks Marshall ... never knew Amy was short for Amelia. That said the character sounds frightful - treated by psychiatrists, works as a kissogram and then doesn't know what time is - definitely hard work.

It won't surprise you that I don't understand modern Dr.Who. Classic Dr.Who (70s), yes - I can see the point of that. Quite theological really, interplay of good and evil, etc. But by the 80s it had lost the plot and should have stayed in the archives.

Now that was strange!  Did a reply to Papa about debauchery in early 18th C Scotland, tried to post and got a message saying this topic was locked and I couldn't post to it.

Afraid it was a long post and was lost...not sure I have the energy to retype it.  But I think Papa we need to be careful, I think we were getting close to diplomacy with some of that  

As to Amy Pond, I have to admit to a weak spot for the actress and she is a true Highlander so would be  good inspiration

To change the subject a bit  I must admit, I am quite intrigued by the recent Saxon-related news articles of the last couple of turns.  They are quite in-depth