Moderator: Community Team
koontz1973 wrote:
Change the topic to should maps have religious overtones on them, you will get a debate worth having.
Symmetry wrote:Hmm, I'm sorry, but no. I don't even like that the topic has been moved away from the forum most able to discuss it. This is already a compromise. Now set out your points.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:For a website that is concerned enough about inclusiveness to outright bar swastikas, it feels awkward to me. We either have concerns about people being offended by certain things or we don't. Even the word "Israel" brings up a lot of emotions and stress in the general population. It's whoever's site this is to decide what is or isn't allowed, of course, but consistent application will always be a concern.
Night Strike wrote:Neoteny wrote:For a website that is concerned enough about inclusiveness to outright bar swastikas, it feels awkward to me. We either have concerns about people being offended by certain things or we don't. Even the word "Israel" brings up a lot of emotions and stress in the general population. It's whoever's site this is to decide what is or isn't allowed, of course, but consistent application will always be a concern.
So atheism's answer is to ban words because you don't like them? What happened to tolerance?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Butters1919 wrote:Symmetry wrote:Hmm, I'm sorry, but no. I don't even like that the topic has been moved away from the forum most able to discuss it. This is already a compromise. Now set out your points.
Actually this is the right place for it (as would the Foundry be). OT is for topics not pertaining to CC. This is directly related to CC. If you wish to discuss religious and/or political themes regarding historical Israel in OT, go ahead. But if you want to talk about it with reference to a map to perhaps be played by the community of CC, then this is the right place.
And in my opinion, the map is just fine. It is in no way offensive. If someone finds it so, I'm yet to hear why.
DoomYoshi wrote:What, if any, are the implications?
Symmetry wrote:Butters1919 wrote:Symmetry wrote:Hmm, I'm sorry, but no. I don't even like that the topic has been moved away from the forum most able to discuss it. This is already a compromise. Now set out your points.
Actually this is the right place for it (as would the Foundry be). OT is for topics not pertaining to CC. This is directly related to CC. If you wish to discuss religious and/or political themes regarding historical Israel in OT, go ahead. But if you want to talk about it with reference to a map to perhaps be played by the community of CC, then this is the right place.
And in my opinion, the map is just fine. It is in no way offensive. If someone finds it so, I'm yet to hear why.
The map was already under game discussion in the foundry. I have never advocated that that not happen. A more sophisticated (and more brutal) discussion on the map's implicationds can occur in OT.
Neoteny wrote:Atheism aside, wow that's a painful map at which to look.
Symmetry wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:What, if any, are the implications?
That the area described in the map is prophesied by God to be conquered?
Doc_Brown wrote:Symmetry wrote:Butters1919 wrote:Symmetry wrote:Hmm, I'm sorry, but no. I don't even like that the topic has been moved away from the forum most able to discuss it. This is already a compromise. Now set out your points.
Actually this is the right place for it (as would the Foundry be). OT is for topics not pertaining to CC. This is directly related to CC. If you wish to discuss religious and/or political themes regarding historical Israel in OT, go ahead. But if you want to talk about it with reference to a map to perhaps be played by the community of CC, then this is the right place.
And in my opinion, the map is just fine. It is in no way offensive. If someone finds it so, I'm yet to hear why.
The map was already under game discussion in the foundry. I have never advocated that that not happen. A more sophisticated (and more brutal) discussion on the map's implicationds can occur in OT.
The implications being that a group of refugees from Egypt some 3000 years ago thought they had a divine right to sliver of land and then proceeded to war with their neighbors and each other for the next 500 years? The map is clearly labeled as Ancient Israel. It's set in a time when there were 12 tribes. How many modern Israelis can point to which tribe they descend from? Sure there are some people that believe the perceived divine right from thousands of years ago provides an entitlement to the same thing today, and that's a valid debate for OT. But if that's the problem with the map, we really need to get rid of the First Nations America maps too. After all, some of the colonist groups came for religious reasons ("City on a Hill," "Freedom of Religion," and all that), and the native groups were conquered by people that believed their god gave them the land. How about the American Civil War map? It has racism and religious views underlying the themes that are present in it, not unlike the WW2 maps. Certainly the swastika has been banned, in part because it's illegal in some parts of the world and is considered patently offensive in other places. I haven't heard of any country that has banned passages from the Bible or that finds mention of 2500 year old geopolitical conflicts to be patently offensive.
Symmetry wrote:I don't get how you implied that from what I said.
Funkyterrance wrote:Neoteny wrote:Atheism aside, wow that's a painful map at which to look.
Racist.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Symmetry wrote:Doc_Brown wrote:The implications being that a group of refugees from Egypt some 3000 years ago thought they had a divine right to sliver of land and then proceeded to war with their neighbors and each other for the next 500 years? The map is clearly labeled as Ancient Israel. It's set in a time when there were 12 tribes. How many modern Israelis can point to which tribe they descend from? Sure there are some people that believe the perceived divine right from thousands of years ago provides an entitlement to the same thing today, and that's a valid debate for OT. But if that's the problem with the map, we really need to get rid of the First Nations America maps too. After all, some of the colonist groups came for religious reasons ("City on a Hill," "Freedom of Religion," and all that), and the native groups were conquered by people that believed their god gave them the land. How about the American Civil War map? It has racism and religious views underlying the themes that are present in it, not unlike the WW2 maps. Certainly the swastika has been banned, in part because it's illegal in some parts of the world and is considered patently offensive in other places. I haven't heard of any country that has banned passages from the Bible or that finds mention of 2500 year old geopolitical conflicts to be patently offensive.
I don't get how you implied that from what I said.
Night Strike wrote:Symmetry wrote:I don't get how you implied that from what I said.
Then why didn't you actually answer what the implications are?
Doc_Brown wrote:Symmetry wrote:Doc_Brown wrote:The implications being that a group of refugees from Egypt some 3000 years ago thought they had a divine right to sliver of land and then proceeded to war with their neighbors and each other for the next 500 years? The map is clearly labeled as Ancient Israel. It's set in a time when there were 12 tribes. How many modern Israelis can point to which tribe they descend from? Sure there are some people that believe the perceived divine right from thousands of years ago provides an entitlement to the same thing today, and that's a valid debate for OT. But if that's the problem with the map, we really need to get rid of the First Nations America maps too. After all, some of the colonist groups came for religious reasons ("City on a Hill," "Freedom of Religion," and all that), and the native groups were conquered by people that believed their god gave them the land. How about the American Civil War map? It has racism and religious views underlying the themes that are present in it, not unlike the WW2 maps. Certainly the swastika has been banned, in part because it's illegal in some parts of the world and is considered patently offensive in other places. I haven't heard of any country that has banned passages from the Bible or that finds mention of 2500 year old geopolitical conflicts to be patently offensive.
I don't get how you implied that from what I said.
Point being that you're drawing unreasonable implications, and your approach could easily be extended to find half the maps on this site to be offensive.
Funkyterrance wrote:I went and re-read the caption on the map and I'll admit the wording is a little heavy handed. You could probably just tweak it a little and everyone would be happy as it does read as slightly "charged" as it stands.
Funkyterrance wrote:I went and re-read the caption on the map and I'll admit the wording is a little heavy handed. You could probably just tweak it a little and everyone would be happy as it does read as slightly "charged" as it stands.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users