It was based on the belief that you were defending that some of the nations I was discussing were engaged in cannibalism.  You're not, so it's irrelevant.  Feel free to skip.

Sorry, there was quite a bit to write and because this is such a sensitive issue, I wanted to take care to ensure I selected my words appropriately.

There are two separate cases of racism in the statement you cited.  The first is "cannibalism exists in this pile of countries we're talking about, so let's talk about other regions" without providing sources.  The second, more egregious instance, is insinuating that the cannibalism was a premeditated, calculated part of the society's cycle of fertility such that it would explain high fertility rates in some of the described countries... again, without providing sources.

It's racist because perpetuating such a decisionmaking process as a thing occurring among people in the most impoverished nations:
A: Is factually incorrect absent some evidence to the contrary, as the food required to raise a child would be more than the food that would even be obtained from such a process (i.e., it would not actually be effective to do what was described in times of desperation), and
B: Creates a false impression that would, if accepted as true, justify readers to view those poor people as something less than human.  After all... if those people are willing to slaughter their own children like cattle, not out of a momentary act of desperation, but as part of a calculated process of filicide that parents opt to engage in against their own children over the course of months... the average reader may conclude that the problem isn't simply poverty, but that those individuals (the poor you characterize) are simply morally depraved, beyond help.  "They're cannibals" is one of the first lies that has historically been spewed to dehumanize those in impoverished regions of the world and subsequently justify European imperialism.  Not that I'm saying cannibalism doesn't exist... but you have to pull evidence and be damn specific when hurling things out like that.

Which brings me to the "example" of what you were talking about.

First of all, an example that seems more tame should NOT justify the sentence beforehand, and Trump proves why.  If you make a comment that could easily be incendiary, then follow it up with "Oh, no, I mean this much more tame thing" without apologizing for the first statement, you still justify the wording of the first statement... and justify those who want to cling to that first statement doing so.  It's your responsibility to support your statements with facts when discussing such sensitive issues.

Second, your example is, ridiculously unlikely to be what was meant in this discussion because a spontaneous decision to engage in cannibalism wouldn't affect the fertility rate.  If a parent raised a kid to age 8, and was later "encouraged" by the rich to give up their children, that would have absolutely no effect on the fertility rate because that child has already been born.  A parent raising a child who lives to age 80 has the same effect on the fertility rate for the year the child was born as a parent who raises a child that will die at age 5.

Third, my own look into historical cannibalism didn't find this in Ancient Rome.  I could easily be wrong on this, so linky?

Fourth... and possibly the biggest problem... your example is not relevant (and, in fact, justifies every accusation of racism I have levied) because your example doesn't talk about ANY country that was in that discussion.  We were specifically talking about countries in the modern world that had the highest fertility rates... Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.  The example you can cite for your scenario is Ancient Rome.  Not only is it not relevant, but you are applying behavior to people in modern impoverished nations because "Oh, it was done once in Ancient Rome so it must also be done here."  Moreover, because THIS was your example... even if sources are found that would satisfy the above concerns, they are arguably irrelevant because if your statement was rooted in facts about the countries in question, why cite to this weird scenario in a 2,000 year old country that wasn't part of the discussion instead of using those facts you knew about?

And keep in mind... I have given you one massive out: CITE SOURCES.  Sources differentiate characterization from fact.  If you can point out... with links to reputable sources... instances that justify the factual statements made within the countries relevant to our discussion (i.e., no, a source about cannibalism in Ancient Rome doesn't count), then you're at least partially in the clear (although it would still be incredibly insensitive to apply the cannibalism label generally if only a few countries in the list engaged in the practice... especially if the countries engaging in such didn't happened to be the lowest per-capita GDP countries on the list).

First of all, judging a people's overall behavior in all of history by their behavior at the times of most difficulty is bull.

Second, that argument would make sense if the fertility rate saw a sharp drop (as the Lost Decade was a significant shift in company behavior).  However, the fertility rate was dropping for 20 years before the crash.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/public … /japan.pdf

Explanation?

So why haven't you moved to one of those bastions of economic stability that have high fertility rates like Somalia, South Sudan, or Afghanistan?  Because those are the places at the top of fertility rates.  Are you saying the average person in Somalia is having children because they're that secure about their $600 GDP per capita?  I found exactly zero countries in the top 20 fertility rate countries with a GDP per capita above $10,000 (Equatorial Guinea was the first above $10,000 per capita GDP the 23rd nation in fertility).  Moreover, a disproportionate amount of the high-fertility rate countries are not just poor, but in the $1-3 per day GDP per capita range.  At this range, price changes that are so small we barely notice them (for example a 5% increase in the price of grain) could easily knock millions of people into starvation.

Are you really saying they're economically stable, as evidenced by their high fertility rate?  Or maybe there's an alternate cause of high/low fertility rates that you're ignoring to fit your own theory?

Let's go with what you refer to as "western nations" (presumably the US, Canada, and various western European nations).  Hell, let's hurl Japan into the mix too because they also have a population growth problem.  This also means there's no way in hell I'm defending Russia as "not totalitarian."

"It is a concept" and "it is currently in effect" are two very different things.  I questioned the latter.  You are now trying to prove the former, which wasn't being argued.

EDIT: I see you have interpreted "Sure.  It could be a thing" as meaning "de facto martial law may be a concept."  That was not my intent.  My intent with that sentence was a reply to your last sentence:

You said:
"De facto martial rule could be in-force regardless of any systemic violations of said fancy documents."
Me:
"Sure.  It could be a thing."  (As in... I am agreeing that de facto martial rule could be in force regardless of any systematic violations of said fancy documents.")

Continuing my quote:
"Now provide proof of it if you're going to hold onto the theory that it's currently a thing..."

That is... provide proof that de facto martial rule is currently in effect.... not that it's a concept people talk/write about.  This interpretation is substantiated by the rest of the sentence...

"...keeping in mind that "violations of constitutions," as you've just granted... doesn't necessarily mean martial rule is in effect."

Notice the end clarifier of my intent.  That should have made it very clear that I was saying "provide evidence we are currently in a state of de facto martial rule..."

Because law is complicated?  This is a false dichotomy.  There is absolutely no reason that a nation cannot be run by normal people who simply have different interpretations of what and is what not encompassed under various issues... without some shadow government behind it.

Why the violations (violations which you have not cited, incidentally, and thus which provide absolutely no capability for people to analyze the issues)?  Because people are individuals.

Yep!  I didn't vote for the guy. 

If you didn't notice, I was giving what could be characterized as perfectly reasonable responses until the moment Trumpspeak happened. 

To be clear, my problem was with the fact that I had to try and decipher an argument from Trumpspeak.  Nothing more, and I apologize for any indication of otherwise.

It used to be that welfare took about 20 minutes to update the welfare research outputs.  During that time, the game was 100% inaccessible.

However, the process has been improved since then.  I'm not sure how long the downtime is... if it even exists anymore.  However, whatever it is, it's much less than it was 10 years ago.  Depending on the server stress created, it might not be unreasonable to modify welfare research to update every tick nowadays.

You'd need a lawyer and a relevant case.

The Supreme Court only makes rulings on constitutional cases as a result of a case occurring and being appealed to them.  You would need to first find a case somewhere in which this issue becomes a relevant legal point.  You would have to argue the point in court, and upon losing the initial case (because generally, lower courts don't like to make far-reaching points of law), you'll appeal it to higher courts.  Although you would definitely be heard in your jurisdiction's relevant appeals court, the Supreme Court has one major barrier to hearing cases: overload.  They get a couple tens of thousands of appeal requests every year, and only have time to hear a couple dozen... so they tend to hear only ones with the most important (not necessarily controversial) constitutional issues.

Why do I say this?

... because the funniest thing I'll end up doing all year will be reading the Supreme Court's response to this argument.  This is like Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp. or Gerald Mayo v. Satan and his Staff material! 

How the hell are you equating "five minutes late" with "shadow lizard government"?

[EDIT: SCRATCH ALL THAT.]

Since when was it ever universally agreed upon that strict constructionism of the constitution was the universally accepted interpretation?

Just for clarification, the morale formula ONLY factors in relative player size, relative family size, and relative family NW.  Relative player NW is NOT a factor.