Princess Bubblegum

I think it has more to do with multis and being able to track and report suspicious multi activity which is near impossible when you have two nations with their own alliances sending untraceable (by normal players) money through the two banks.

11/10 idea

Just wanted to double check that this feature is still working with the new changes that have been made. I suspect that it is not as I am down 100+ approval from where I was since the changes.

I have good news for you.

PRAISE KEK

I only have 20 oil in my nation, so obviously something is wrong.

It was my understanding that with the fortify option it's just the opposite. All resources 'cept cash are now untouchable because being beiged can only happen if inactive or voluntarily done.

Jeez how could you forget the video

You poor thing. You've internalized your oppression.

They said everyone would be beige in the future.

TRUMP 2016: ✓ Micro alliance ✓ Trying to gain a foothold in Orbis Sure, I'll take a resource bundle.

I guess that means I must suck the most.

ayyyy lmao

This is true. Size of a nation is inversely proportional to the amount of stuff you can get away with.

#rigged

I tried to warn you all.

Funny I got a recruitment message, too. Almost considered joining just to associate your alliance with Trump.

What a time to be alive.

Trump 2016 supports the efforts of the Night's Watch and their wall agenda.

At face value, I'm a bit skeptical of these assertions and in particular the ones based on scientific claims of fact. Translations are in the spoilers. Argument A P1 No things that possess monogamy are things that retain the instinct to mate with as many partners as accessible. (Unstated) P2 All human males are things that retain the instinct to mate with as many partners as accessible. ::No human males are things that possess monogamy. Argument B P1 All people that possess monogamy are people that have a release of hormones from sex that cause feelings of "clinginess". (Unstated) P2 No human males are people that have a release of hormones from sex that cause feelings of "clinginess". ::No human males are things that possess monogamy. Argument A is the one more likely to be accepted as sound. Both premises at least seem plausible. P2 may not be quite as universal as indicated, but is probably true enough. Argument B is more questionable. You are asserting a scientific fact, so perhaps you have the evidence to support this claim. If it is true scientifically, it still only pertains to monogamy (exclusivity) as an evolutionary characteristic. So perhaps you are right, that male monogamy is non-existent as an evolutionary trait, but that doesn’t then mean that monogamy as a social construct had no purpose for men. Perhaps in some ways that is true, but it did serve a purpose. It allowed your normal man to have children. It allowed for a family. And societies that lacked this tended to either not develop or fail. Yes, adultery is a legal term. So is incest. Neither are only legal terms, though. The last part there, though, is a huge leap (and is probably a naturalistic fallacy/appeal to nature). That’s asserting that social institutions and norms have no capacity to hamper undesirable human behavior, which is the entire point to law, religion (mostly), and social ostracism. Some men may be incapable of not breaching (very skeptical of the claim that it applies to most men) such a contract, but that is irrelevant: if they enter into it, then they are beholden to its consequences; otherwise the contract should never have had the stipulation of exclusivity from the beginning. You can argue for that and be acceptably consistent, but it would be an exercise in fraud to desire both the contract and a lack of consequences. I also noticed you didn’t care to address the impacts that adultery has on families (regardless if it’s “natural†or not), which is the crux of the argument. So now you’re introducing a new argument regarding genetic health. This also only describes heterosexual incest between two people capable of reproducing. Presumably this wouldn’t apply to homosexual incest or infertile partners. Basically the argument is the law should be prohibiting sex when there is a significant chance of genetic damage to offspring. And as the OP pointed out, this, too, can be extended to other circumstances with similar risks: aging partners, those who have inheritable and damaging genetic disorders, the mentally handicapped, etc. And here's a really big one that should be illegal in that case: drinking alcohol while pregnant. If this were sufficient for one, it should be sufficient for others. But you created a strawman. Incest IS comparable to adultery if the argument is that risk of significant familial damage (relationship wise) is sufficient reason to make consensual incest illegal.

Your analogy between noise laws and consensual sex between adults is a weak one: the former does not have all parties consenting to the action; the latter does. The limitations of freedom with noise laws exist to protect the non-consenting parties. However, the damage done to the family is an externality (as your article argued), and one can make the case that the law exists to prevent those externalities despite all parties consenting and no immediate transgressions upon 3rd parties. I’m absolutely willing to accept that argument. Yes, I can agree that some laws (but not all) will have arbitrary delineations as to what will be legal and illegal. This is because the physical world has spectrums, and laws that apply to spectrums have to draw a line somewhere. The next question is: is that true of incest? I don’t agree that it is--at least not in the same physical way that age-related consent is. Some things are black and white. You can ask an adult and a 10 year old if they consent to something and get the same answer. The reason we legally accept the consent of the adult and not the child is we recognize that the child’s brain is not sufficiently developed. The child lacks sufficient agency and awareness of consequences. But clearly childrens’ ability to consent—regardless of their actual words--exist on a spectrum. The same is not true of adults (with the exception of the mentally handicapped). At some point, even if that point is fuzzy, a person is no longer a child. That is the prerequisite for consent. The reason drawing a legal line on such a fuzzy spectrum would not be considered hypocritical is because calling it hypocritical would be committing the fallacy of the beard: making an assertion that there is no spectrum. I do agree that there is a spectrum with age-related consent. I don’t agree that there is an equivalent fuzzy spectrum with consensual sex between otherwise healthy adults because only external factors (e.g. undue influence or drugs) can render a TRUE result (both consenting) a FALSE one (non-consent); whereas internal factors (brain development) can render a child’s TRUE result (consent) as a false-positive (absence of consent). The law also factors for the external factors on a case-by-case basis which it cannot do for internal factors because there is no realistic means to do so. These are significant dissimilarities that make your analogy a weak one. And this was just in regards to one application of law: sexual consent. Others are even more clear-cut. Keep in mind I’m working with normative arguments. I’m arguing (secondarily) that the law should be held to a standard of consistency, not debating whether it actually is in reality or not. Really though, my primary argument was in regards to the normative reasoning of the sexual liberationists. If it wasn’t already obvious, of course I detest incest and am not defending it; I’m critiquing libertine reasoning. The law itself was secondary to that because it is subject to other factors such as means and practicality. And, perhaps this is nitpicking, but I disagree with the assertion that there was no consistent logical reasoning in determining age-related consent limits. The conclusions may have been inconsistent because the members of the spectrum form a “fuzzy set†(as mathematicians put it), but the methodology and reasoning was--for the most part—consistent. Your only defense to an accusation of double standards/double think at this point now rests upon the factual claims of adultery as not harmful to family, which is certainly not accepted as true by most people. Because this is not a believable claim on its own, it would require some kind of evidence to support such a claim. If it can be shown with evidence and reasoned out that adultery is harmful to the family and not a healthy behavior (and you can’t show otherwise), then either you have to abandon the position and accept that adultery laws should come back for the “good of the family,†or you are guilty of double think and the OP has another example to call upon to prove his point. If I really had to, I could go over to Google Scholar and try to do this, but I feel like I’m already spending too much time in this thread. I will say though that most marriages are formed under the implicit--if not explicit--assumption of monogamy. If we’re categorizing adultery as distinct from open relationships, then there is a victim/aggrieved party to a contract: the cheated spouse (who becomes the plaintiff in legal action). And the obvious externality of adultery is the social costs of this legal action. Consensual incest doesn’t even have that. And this is secondary to the damage that adultery does to relationships. This is an ambiguous statement. We don’t know what you mean by bad family unit. But don’t bother defining it unless you contend that it is always the case. If it’s not, then your point is only true some of the time. But I also don’t see why you wouldn’t make the same assertion about incest: that incest is a product of a bad family unit. Neither does incest. Another case of ambiguity. What do you mean by family? Like Solaire pointed out, a family can be as few as two people. Obviously with adultery, at the very least one marriage is involved, even if one of the sex partners is not married themselves. For argument’s sake, let’s suppose adultery only referred to those within a marriage. If the argument is adultery isn’t a harmful substance to family units given that adultery doesn't require a family [of more than the two people in question] in the first place, then neither would an incestuous couple whose family makeup consisted only of themselves. So either the point is incorrect or it can extend to incest as well. But obviously, it’s the former as the “argument†itself is an absurd one: P1 Things that don’t require a family are not harmful substances to family units. (Unstated) P2 Adultery doesn't require a family. :: Adultery isn't a harmful substance to family units. Specifically P1, your unstated premise (which you left unstated for a reason), is the ridiculous one. Murder doesn’t require a family either, yet obviously murder—when acted upon a member of a family that does exist—is “a harmful substance to a family unit.†You are underplaying the damage it does. Not only to the spouse, but to children as well. I can speak of this experience first-hand. Gonna disagree with this one. I don’t accept that it’s a healthy behavior (otherwise you should be advocating for adultery in relationships). My own personal opinions on this subject (which you can obviously reject if you wish) align with CS Lewis’s: