by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Balder RMB

WA Delegate: The Kingdom of North East Somerset (elected )

Last WA Update:

Board Activity History Admin Rank

World Factbook Entry

Welcome to the Realm of Balder!

Nations are asked to join the World Assembly and endorse King North East Somerset, Crown Prince Onder Kelkia and Prince Alvalero.

The endorsement limit (cap) is currently 5 for nations not endorsing the Delegate and 15 for those who are. See here for further information on endorsement allowances.


Useful Community Links:

LinkRegional Forums | Balder's WA Expedition | LinkRegional Discord Server | In-game Embassy Policy



Embassies: the West Pacific, The Land of Kings and Emperors, The North Pacific, the Pacific, The East Pacific, Europeia, United Kingdom, The Communist Bloc, Europe, International Democratic Union, Lazarus, the South Pacific, St Abbaddon, NationStates, World Assembly Legislative League, Aarhus, and 3 others.Jomsborg, Ribe, and NationStates Today.

The embassy with NationStates Today is being withdrawn. Closure expected .

Tags: Anti-Fascist, Democratic, Founderless, Game Player, Gargantuan, Independent, Map, Monarchist, National Sovereigntist, Offsite Chat, Offsite Forums, Past Tech, and 3 others.Regional Government, Sinker, and World Assembly.

Regional Power: Very High

Balder contains 8,356 nations, the 5th most in the world.

Today's World Census Report

The Largest Publishing Industry in Balder

The World Census tallied social media complaints from students regarding overpriced textbooks to determine which nations have the largest book publishing industries.

As a region, Balder is ranked 6,924th in the world for Largest Publishing Industry.

NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The Humanoid Republic of ArageshInoffensive Centrist Democracy“Keep up the faith, never let down nor surrender.”
2.The Commonwealth of LanzmaniaInoffensive Centrist Democracy“We Like Pie”
3.The United States of The Union of MuricaInoffensive Centrist Democracy“Semper Exploro”
4.The Imperial Republic of TomzillaCivil Rights Lovefest“For the Night is Dark and Full of Terrors”
5.The Sultanate of ZargoviaInoffensive Centrist Democracy“Si tibi molestum caeli venite ad Zargovia!”
6.The Principality of JolteoniaLiberal Democratic Socialists“言えるかな?”
7.The Holy Necromantic Empire of KorprikeInoffensive Centrist Democracy“Dominion in shadows!”
8.The Empire of NeXxionInoffensive Centrist Democracy“Fight”
9.The Real Deal of PablolukaCivil Rights Lovefest“It's not the size of a man, but the size of his heart”
10.The Lucky Federation of AelyriaLeft-Leaning College State“Through wisdom, unity, and honor, we create peace.”
1234. . .835836»

Regional Happenings

More...

Balder Regional Message Board

Aelyria wrote:"Prevalent among the religious" means a higher percentage of religious people are hypocrites than others. "Common" means that there are more of them as a total percentage of all people. The two are very different things. There are more religious people than non-religious people; ergo, you are going to encounter more hypocritical religious people than hypocritical nonreligious people purely because religious people are more common. To say that religious folks are more likely to be hypocrites is, frankly, just wrong. They're as likely to be hypocrites as any group that

I live in an area that is very liberal, nonreligious, and counter-culture. I do encounter more nonreligious hypocrites than religious ones (particularly the aforementioned vegan crusaders, though "science is like, such a downer man" types and "communism is great and never causes problems" are also quite common). That doesn't mean hypocrisy is more common among people who don't consume animal-sourced materials. It just means I see more of them. Hypocrisy is a potential problem for anyone who has a commitment to an ideology, and that's a majority of humankind.

I know you're religious. There's no need to so vociferously defend yourself. I wasn't personally attacking you. I'm just a random guy on the Internet who is shaped by his experiences and environment like everybody else.

sooo, hi from joseviano :)

Aelyria wrote:Okay.

So.

Did I even once claim that religious people HAVEN'T done bad things? Did I even remotely imply that bad things AREN'T the direct result of horrible behavior from Christians specifically, and theists or religious people in general? No. I did not. I did not do that because it would be blatantly false to do so. Christians, theists, and religious people in general have done horrible, monstrous, frightening, sickening things throughout history. But they aren't special for having done so. Bringing up the fact that they have in this way only has two motives: you're trying to skewer me for acting like religious people (and Christians in particular) never do anything wrong, or you're pulling blatant Whataboutism.

My point is not, was not, and will never be that religion is flawless. Because that would be monumentally stupid. My point is, was, and will always be that hypocrisy is not in any way special to religion, which is what was originally claimed. The original claim was not "religious people CAN BE hypocritical." It was that religious people straight-up ARE, fundamentally, MORE hypocritical than anyone else: "That won't be difficult as religion and hypocrisy go hand in hand." I then brought up examples of hypocrisy, such as the French Reign of Terror that was supposed to be about Public Safety (since that was literally the provisional government's name, the Committee of Public Safety), which slaughtered thousands of political opponents, and which was EXPLICITLY anti-religious in nature.

I am a religious person. I strive, every day, to be as honest, forthright, and upstanding as I can be. That means always being critical about my faith and what it asks of me. It means continually re-evaluating my positions and asking whether what I am doing is morally right, and genuinely considering the possibility that what I do or have done could be morally wrong. I absolutely will not defend the horrific actions of some fellow believers; I will never defend the rank hypocrisy that some religious people demonstrate. But I will not stand idly by when someone blanket accuses me, and everyone like me, of being an inherent hypocrite simply because we are religious. There are religious non-hypocrites, and non-religious hypocrites. Unless you've got some scientific data to back up your assertions--and yes, I am genuinely willing to listen if you do, and will genuinely strive to avoid unfair burdens of proof in this regard--all you're doing is defaming a group of people to which I belong.

Mate I don't know why you're going on a rant there, I didn't even mean that the way you think..

Can't decide if I wanna join this discussion or not. Genuinely afraid of saying something dumb here..

However, I can agree that hypocrisy is predominant in religion. Sorry, Aelyria.

hi

Pretty long text tho, really long..

Japerlasa wrote:However, I can agree that hypocrisy is predominant in religion. Sorry, Aelyria.

It really isn't. Unless you've got more than "well that's what I've seen," you're just tarring an entire--and enormous--group of people with the brush of its worst offenders. This is like saying that men in Florida must be predominantly substance-abusing, violent, mentally-unsound people because that's the only time you hear about Florida Man.

Keep in mind: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Chinese folk religion* collectively cover more than 80% of the human race. Even the most generous estimates say that no more than 25% of the global population is some flavor of nonreligious (atheist, agnostic, secular or secular humanist, "not religious,"** non-practicing, etc.) "Hypocrisy is predominant in religion" literally means that you're saying the majority of 80% of humanity are hypocrites. That's why I'm arguing.

I get that not everyone thinks this is an important issue. It is an important issue for me.

*There isn't a more precise term than this one, or at least not one universally accepted. "Shenism" or "shendao" may be the next best alternative, but there's really no good option.
**That is, someone who answers a survey with the phrase "I'm not religious," which may include some people who have spiritual beliefs, but who reject most/all religious labels or institutions.

Edit:
But, y'know what? This is not a fight worth continuing. If you wish to slag on an enormous swathe of humanity due to its worst elements, and pretend that that makes them specially awful, fine. That's up to you. I'm done.

why is the symbol for integrity an unlocked lock but the symbol for corruption a lock

Economichunger wrote:why is the symbol for integrity an unlocked lock but the symbol for corruption a lock

Because a society that is free of corruption is open--like an open lock. At least, that's the logic I'd always assumed.

Economichunger wrote:why is the symbol for integrity an unlocked lock but the symbol for corruption a lock

It's to lock all the skeletons in your closet.

Forum View

Advertisement