Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

94 Excellent


About Braunsberg

  • Rank
    König in Preußen

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Leader Name
    von Schwannhardt
  • Nation Name
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name
    Black Knights

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name

Recent Profile Visitors

1981 profile views
  1. On the "Donate" page in-game, it says that the cap of 10 credits sold/redeemed for bonuses per month will be reset on the 1st of each month. The game clock now says it is July 2nd, so I was just wondering when the reset is effective or if the information on the Donate page might be outdated. EDIT: Never mind, I see on the Changelog that it was just now updated. Thanks!
  2. Hi all. Just got back into P&W after three years of absence. I originally played with a nation called Roma for a few months in mid-2015 - I definitely recognize a fair number of the bigger players, so I hope someone recognizes me. ? I started off in some small-ish alliance, forget the name of it, but after it collapsed my alliance-mates and I were briefly in VE and then founded an alliance called Praeteritum. Things worked smoothly for a while and I think we were negotiating with a few bigger alliances to become a protectorate right before I left (someone else I spoke with recognized the name and says Praeteritum became part of UPN's bloc). Anyways, nice to see everyone and I look forward to rolling or being rolled by you good people. ?
  3. But it's so hard to find good entertainment these days, and the Republican debates aren't until later today.
  4. Uuuggghhhh, my aching head.... Heterosexuality spreads AIDS too, but that's no reason to ban it.
  5. That wouldn't matter much to me because I don't happen to be atheist. And although I agree some atheists have a habit of mocking religious people, I am convinced from experience that highly religious people have a much more significant tendency to point fingers. For example: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/indiana-public-school-punishes-7-year-old-with-banishment-for-not-believing-in-god-lawsuit/ It would not be so problematic if that brand of religion were not so common. For example, that "stereotype" wouldn't apply so much to European Christians - for the most part, or at least to a far greater extent than in the United States, religious communities tend to have a much more open view of science and ideas like homosexuality. Even in Spain and Portugal, where Catholicism is an integral part of cultural life, most people tend to find no interest in the stricter religious rejections of modern science and political ideals (which I learned from one of my former Spanish teachers, who was from Alicante). In contrast, here in the United States, highly religious communities make up a significant portion of the population and are a very loud voice that consistently argues against scientific findings pertaining to evolution, astrophysics, homosexuality and other gender dynamics, and so forth. So, stereotyping? Perhaps, I will not argue otherwise. But the one thing I think is more important is that the huge group of Americans that fits that description has done nothing yet to falsify that stereotype, not even slightly.
  6. Precisely. That's what ticks me off. It wouldn't bother me so much if they familiarized themselves with research and found legitimate reasons to support their beliefs. Instead we simply see "I don't understand it, therefore God." Edit: I feel more hostile than usual right now, haha, but I think it's high time that someone be frank about some of this nonsense, to be honest.
  7. Okay, like seriously, do you realize there have been hundreds of studies that have concluded again and again that homosexuality is ultimately determined by genetics and neural development? The only reason for people to cling to the idea that homosexuality is chosen is to scrape up some excuse to justify the "they're wrong, I'm right" religious idea. Ticks me off when people blatantly ignore science and data just because they prefer their beliefs over learning.
  8. Sex does not lead to those things. They merely involve it. The drive to reproduce in that manner is also part of our instinct - that's why the drive to do it is overwhelming for most people at some point, and why most people (or at least many) end up having children eventually. There is nothing inherently wrong about it, and things like rape and molestation occur because of sexual drive. In short terms, you will either have to accept that intercourse is a part of human life and that the "problems" you have listed are inevitable, or you don't accept them, ban intercourse, and kill off humanity because there's no more reproduction.
  9. In case your impression of humanity is severely skewed, most people don't just go around sleeping with anyone for fun. Banning intercourse outside of marriage would probably have a near-immeasurable effect on the spread of STDs like that, first because it would be almost impossible to enforce (even more so than prohibition), and second because the vast majority of people don't live like that. And once again, if you disapprove of that lifestyle, don't live that way. Just because you think it's disgusting and immature doesn't give you the right to ban it. I think evangelic Christianity is severely damaging to our culture and I think it brews a lot of contempt, but that doesn't mean such evangelists should be banned from living their lives the way they'd like. There happens to be something called empathy, you know.
  10. Yes I do, and probably a lot. The first widespread periodic publications other than newspapers (unless you'd count almanacs, but I would not since those were not distributed as widely) were catalogs in the United States sent out to sell farming utensils, equipment, and (perhaps most of all) clothing to families settling the western states in the 1850s through maybe the 1880s. "Magazines" already existed by that point, but they were scarcely any different from newspapers. The first magazines that could be reasonably compared to today's publications would have been the political journals that became popular in the late 1800s - for example, Puck, which was created in 1871. These were followed, around the turn of the century, by the introduction of a much wider range of specific magazines and publications catered to certain groups, interests, hobbies, et cetera. This new diversity in publications would have been the first time anything comparable to pornography would have been circulated widely on a regular basis. That is not to say that "pornography" did not exist prior to that, by the standards of the day - some paintings and early photographs were made for the purpose of arousal - but they were still not distributed commonly in newspapers or through other means that reached such large numbers of people as the later magazines did. Are you somehow convinced that marriage makes one immune to AIDS and similar STDs? Those diseases will spread whether the couples are married or not. There's a lot more success to be had in investments to science and research than in censorship and theocratic oppression. As for that second part, I'm sure you haven't. But I'm also sure that you're something like 12 to 14 years old. Some people do successfully maintain abstinence, but that doesn't mean everyone can do it, and it certainly doesn't mean it's okay to FORCE everyone to do it. To make an analogy, I can live without ever going to church or saying a prayer. You could live that way too. But does that make it right to ban those practices, just because you can live without them?
  11. Who knows? We went from not even flying on Earth to landing on the moon in just 60 years. In only 30 years or so we've gone from believing planets are rare to finding that planets are more common than not. And in the past 20 years we've gone from insisting that earthly life is all there is to insisting that life is probably sprinkled all over the galaxy (and the universe for that matter). Science and technology move quickly if supported by society, and given that space mining doesn't require any special imagination, I think it's very reasonable to believe things like that are right around the corner. In addition, don't forget that breakthroughs are always possible. Even far-reaching concepts like interstellar travel could suddenly be revealed as quite feasible. To put things in perspective, scientists have even successfully teleported a few particles at a time over a short distance, and we're currently trying to make quantum computers (which would use quantum entanglement to "teleport" data across a chip) that would be millions of times faster than our best supercomputers now. There are lots of things that could change very quickly thanks to the introduction of new discoveries and technologies, and especially given our modern communication and information networks, scientific progress now moves many times faster than it ever has in the past.
  12. Wow. To answer that first bit, there are no stars in the background because the lunar surface is highly reflective, meaning the light pollution is enough to make the stars invisible from the surface. It's the same reason why, in bright city neighborhoods, the sky still looks black, but there are few, if any, stars visible. And in case the handful of other responses haven't convinced you, we can't make a lunar colony because space programs don't have the funding to construct and support an establishment that far away (maybe we would if the US government gave more money to NASA instead of lining Congress' pockets or expanding the military, but that's another issue). We have the technology to do it, but it would take a lot of resources and maintenance. Also, it's a bit foolish to claim that we haven't been to the moon when we now have robotic probes that are outside the solar system. Lunar landings are well within the capabilities of modern technology and science.
  13. 1). Yes we did. 2). Well, for one, powerful telescopes on Earth can see the landing pieces that remain on the moon. Second, later astronauts (if I remember correctly) walked to the first Apollo site. Third, we have physical samples of moon dust that I don't think can be replicated by terrestrial minerals and the like.
  14. No, I'm implying that they wouldn't have done it on the frequent basis described by Harminator. People do it more often today because they have access to objects and images to use for that purpose and to arouse them to do it, which of course were not available until quite recently. As for people who are against it, I'm a non-affiliated agnostic and politically I'm a socialist with quite solid left-wing views (including pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ, et cetera). I don't view things like pornography as bad strictly due to my perspective on morality - a lot of it has to do with the fact that, for many people, it becomes habitual and does indeed create difficulties in families or couples. As I said before, I don't think it should be banned by the government because I don't think it is anything that should be considered anywhere close to criminal - not to mention how common it is - but that doesn't mean I think pornography is okay, let alone good. For me it works much the same way as swearing; I think swearing is rude, but I don't really care if other people do it - I simply don't do it myself, and that's good enough for me. Other people watch porn, and while that doesn't help my opinion of them, it doesn't really bother me because I just don't do it myself. Magazines have only been distributed en masse within the last 150 years maximum. And I guarantee you that catalogs/magazines for the first few decades of that didn't feature anything like pornography.
  15. Britain does have stricter laws regarding things related to pornography, so I wouldn't doubt it. If porn viewership and masturbation are so necessary to good health, then how did men of the past not suffer from all these "infections" and such that you mention? I am certainly not denying these studies have found benefit in such practices, but I am very skeptical of your claim that it is unhealthy not to do so. Or at least not nearly to the extent that you would have it seem. I also just turned 18 and have never done that before, and I don't suffer from any strange infections or symptoms, nor am I sexually "aggressive" in any way. I don't think those things are necessary in any sense of the word. As for the second part, I am speaking quite honestly when I say I have not. I'm open-minded when it comes to what other people do - generally I don't care - but I am very strict about what I allow myself to do, and that is one of my personal taboos. Similarly, the only time I have verbally uttered any swear word was when I saw the f-word scratched on a bathroom stall in third grade, and asked what it meant when I got home. Simply because things like pornography - or swearing, masturbating, trying pot, whatever - are commonplace does not mean they are universal habits. Edit: In case that seemed rather pointless, what I'm trying to indicate is that things like pornography aren't simply natural and necessary for reproductive health. While they are common, there are plenty of people who do not view/practice those things and are not in any unhealthy condition, not to mention that the majority of people in the world don't have access to pornography and similarly lack any reason to masturbate. Pornography is much more well known for producing sex and porn addictions and for causing significant friction in established relationships and families than it is for producing any effects that are more beneficial than not watching it. Once again, I don't think it is anything within the rightful jurisdiction of the government - but to say that it is beneficial is highly misleading, because in fact it can become a very addictive and problematic habit.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.