Indignados DoE

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

Shatt is just kicking up dirt, it's the only platform he's ever really had and it's one he works rather well. Any means necessary, right? "!@#$ commie AA" is something rather sad to see coming from him, though, I guess the old mans losing his touch. Though it did cause a few of you to get riled up so I guess it was sufficient. :P

 

 

Anyways, let's stop Shatting this discussion up, shall we? I'd really like to know the logic behind sacrificing military strength for the sanctity of sellers rights in a world where the relationship between buyer and seller is very much one of mutual aid rather than exploiter and exploited.  

Edited December 25, 2013 by Ayatollah Bromeini

[gunzzz]

Even then, we would probably need a GOONS-Umbrella-esk relationship with a lower ANS alliance to maintain high aid slot efficiency

and we all know that is wishful thinking... We don't even trade tech with umbrella, we only trade tech with fellow goons... We're evil that way

[La Marx]

 normative theories and arguments are, on at least some fundamental level, grounded in descriptive premises

My argument has never been 'the world is like this, so to maximuse our utilitarian self-interest, let's sell tech at a higher price.' It has been - 'the world is a certain way and there are innumerable ways to respond to that, and the way people respond to that is just the gamified version of capitalist competition. What we should do instead is something else.' In that sense, the minute arguments about the tech market, alliance politics and so on, has not refuted any part of my thesis. It's pure shadow boxing. Even if one arrives at a true description of bob, it is a naturalistic fallacy to assume that the way people operate within it is how they ought to.

As for the relation between normative theories and descriptions of the world, things are not as cut and dried as you'd like to think. Our description of the world has always been to some extent how we'd like to describe the world. For Christians it is Christianised, for Scientists it is naturalised, for Stoics stoicised, for Americans Americanised, and so on. This is a basic phenomenological insight. The fact/value distinction is purely hypothetical. It itself is not a fact, but a wish - a projection on things - of the values of scientific modernity onto the world. 

[xoindotnler]

And how does it mathematically/other ways benefit me so sell buy at those prices? In two short sentences or less please.

[Cataduanes]

 

ssdfsdfsgd

 

 

You the man Schatt ;)

[USMC123]

I knew you were an idiot the first time you posted on NSO's forums.

These events do not shock me in the slightest.

[Sabcat]

 

Actually, the International is ending this year beating the crap out of an alliance they've owed a war to for several years. That's more than just a high note, I'd call that the left getting righteous. Furthermore, some quick research on the alliance you used to lead (CoJ), shows it to have been a fascist theocracy. So why should anyone care about a fascist theocratic dictator's stupid opinion of democratic communists? How about the next time you want to have an opinion, I'll just tell it to you. That'll save everyone's time.

 

According to Trotsky they're only in the war because Umbrella told them to do it, the choose your own CB crap was just posturing. It doesn't get much more sad. ((((Thinking of Int at Christmas))))

[Jackie Moon]

Yes La Marx, show us the leftist path! Whereby ignorant, new nations to CN make sweeping changes to the tech dealing infrastructure that has been integral to the game for a decade!

 

I think this character will prove to be quite annoying now that he knows the OWF exists.

[Hereno]

I knew you were an idiot the first time you posted on NSO's forums.

These events do not shock me in the slightest.

 

Hey now. His political views that don't involve technology, INT, or Hereno are actually pretty swell.

 

Yes La Marx, show us the leftist path! Whereby ignorant, new nations to CN make sweeping changes to the tech dealing infrastructure that has been integral to the game for a decade!

 

I think this character will prove to be quite annoying now that he knows the OWF exists.

 

[13:46:33] <Hereno> should i tell him to go to the OWF and tell them to make int look like shit
[13:46:36] <Hereno> or is that too much
[13:46:52] <BaronTerror> Oh god please do it
[13:47:00] <BaronTerror> and then post these logs
[13:48:44] <Hereno> <Hereno> yeah
[13:48:44] <Hereno> <Hereno> i would honestly just go to the OWF and tell them you're getting hit as a POW
[13:48:44] <Hereno> <Hereno> it would make INT look so bad

 

You can blame Hereno for that, too.

[soultaker]

 

According to Trotsky they're only in the war because Umbrella told them to do it, the choose your own CB crap was just posturing. It doesn't get much more sad. ((((Thinking of Int at Christmas))))

Wait what? Um no, this is incorrect. UMB did not tell us to hit NoR, we came in on an OA on our own accord. Thought you would have learned by now to not listen to trotsky, :/ that's the part that is sad........

[Clash]

 

According to Trotsky they're only in the war because Umbrella told them to do it, the choose your own CB crap was just posturing. It doesn't get much more sad. ((((Thinking of Int at Christmas))))

 

I'm going out on a limb here and saying he's just messing with everyone lol

 

Having joined Int during the time since the last Int war, when i joined I had no idea how deep and dark the state of relations between Nordriech and The Int was. This war went back for years in the making, with Int having a constant full jones on for Nordreich's blood. The vote (and Int has also got to the most democratic alliance there is, we vote on &54#@ EVERYTHING) was like 95% for war and it didn't matter what the stats said.

 

...so how hilarious is it that, what does the near-impossible and unifies Int and NoR together, is agreeing that La Marx's economic theories are a few tacos short of a combo plate. I love Mexican food as much as the next guy, but people want everything they pay for, so don't skimp 'em on the guacamole either.

 

Hey La Marx, what's up with aiding the NPO guy $6 mil and 100 tech? :awesome:

[Sabcat]

 

I'm going out on a limb here and saying he's just messing with everyone lol

 

Having joined Int during the time since the last Int war, when i joined I had no idea how deep and dark the state of relations between Nordriech and The Int was. This war went back for years in the making, with Int having a constant full jones on for Nordreich's blood. The vote (and Int has also got to the most democratic alliance there is, we vote on &54#@ EVERYTHING) was like 95% for war and it didn't matter what the stats said.

 

...so how hilarious is it that, what does the near-impossible and unifies Int and NoR together, is agreeing that La Marx's economic theories are a few tacos short of a combo plate. I love Mexican food as much as the next guy, but people want everything they pay for, so don't skimp 'em on the guacamole either.

 

Hey La Marx, what's up with aiding the NPO guy $6 mil and 100 tech? :awesome:

 

So the war's going to rage on for a few more months yet then eh?

[Krashnaia]

Most commies I talk to basically have the same ideals as anarchists. Plus the way la Marx talks about communism, it seems more in tune with those anarcho-commie types instead of the way the commie gov in game is set up, which is a heavily militarized type of gov, maybe more in tune with Stalinist.

$%&@ do I know though, I'm not a commie, thank god, too much indecisiveness in the philosophy to get me interested in it, let alone figure out what the hell it is

 

Don't fret your head. You are a GOON, after all. No one expects you to have the brains to tell the differences between basic political principles.

[La Marx]

 

 

Hey La Marx, what's up with aiding the NPO guy $6 mil and 100 tech? :awesome:

I'd rather give my stuff away to a monolithic Gerontocratic bastion of oppression and exploitation (NPO) than so much as pay INT a kopeck. Just that much less to raid from my nation.

Edited December 25, 2013 by La Marx

[gunzzz]

 
Don't fret your head. You are a GOON, after all. No one expects you to have the brains to tell the differences between basic political principles.

I only have frets on my guitar, not my head.... And you are the one calling me stupid... Sheesh

[La Marx]

I only have frets on my guitar, not my head.... And you are the one calling me stupid... Sheesh

I would request that you two stop bickering and trading insults in our DoE thread.

On all that is germane to our DoE, - our pre-history in INT and the various perspectives on that, our search for a protectorate, our commitment to tech equality, etc. feel free to comment.

[gunzzz]

But dad, he started it!!

[Sabcat]

 

Don't fret your head. You are a GOON, after all. No one expects you to have the brains to tell the differences between basic political principles.

 

I think you're struggling with principles. You've posted a lot of liberal drivel, your tech equality scheme is liberal drivel.  It's a shame as well because you're tantalisingly close to a collectivist argument but you spoil it by being a liberal who spouts a lot of liberal drivel. I don't like liberals and I don't like liberal drivel.

[HM Solomon I]

My argument has never been 'the world is like this, so to maximuse our utilitarian self-interest, let's sell tech at a higher price.' It has been - 'the world is a certain way and there are innumerable ways to respond to that, and the way people respond to that is just the gamified version of capitalist competition. What we should do instead is something else.' In that sense, the minute arguments about the tech market, alliance politics and so on, has not refuted any part of my thesis. It's pure shadow boxing. Even if one arrives at a true description of bob, it is a naturalistic fallacy to assume that the way people operate within it is how they ought to.

As for the relation between normative theories and descriptions of the world, things are not as cut and dried as you'd like to think. Our description of the world has always been to some extent how we'd like to describe the world. For Christians it is Christianised, for Scientists it is naturalised, for Stoics stoicised, for Americans Americanised, and so on. This is a basic phenomenological insight. The fact/value distinction is purely hypothetical. It itself is not a fact, but a wish - a projection on things - of the values of scientific modernity onto the world. 

I fail to see where in your argument you make a persuasive case that the way things are is inherently wrong or somehow not working. Your only argument appears to be ideological, and so you will only convince those that already believe communism/collectivism is better. I mean it's ideology dressed up in lots of fancy words and phrases and supremely dense language, but ideology nonetheless.

[gunzzz]

 
I think you're struggling with principles. You've posted a lot of liberal drivel, your tech equality scheme is liberal drivel.  It's a shame as well because you're tantalisingly close to a collectivist argument but you spoil it by being a liberal who spouts a lot of liberal drivel. I don't like liberals and I don't like liberal drivel.

Proof in point... Even commies get confused on what the basic principles are of communism. My goonie ass can't be that stupid then.

[Clash]

Proof in point... Even commies get confused on what the basic principles are of communism. My goonie ass can't be that stupid then.

Kind of ironic considering in the post you quoted Sabcat apparently confused Krashnia with La Marx.

Krashnia is of course is in M16 and therefore not a commie.

 

Ah yes, conservatives are such confused hillbillies :awesome:

[gunzzz]

Kind of ironic considering in the post you quoted Sabcat apparently confused Krashnia with La Marx.
Krashnia is of course is in M16 and therefore not a commie.
 
Ah yes, conservatives are such confused hillbillies :awesome:

Hey now, at least we make the best moonshine in the world

[La Marx]

I fail to see where in your argument you make a persuasive case that the way things are is inherently wrong or somehow not working. Your only argument appears to be ideological, and so you will only convince those that already believe communism/collectivism is better. I mean it's ideology dressed up in lots of fancy words and phrases and supremely dense language, but ideology nonetheless.

Newsflash: every argument is ideological. You can't escape ideology, my friend.

Whether or not my case is persuasive or not to you, I don't care. You haven't address anything specific.

[La Marx]

 

I think you're struggling with principles. You've posted a lot of liberal drivel, your tech equality scheme is liberal drivel.  It's a shame as well because you're tantalisingly close to a collectivist argument but you spoil it by being a liberal who spouts a lot of liberal drivel. I don't like liberals and I don't like liberal drivel.

My scheme is not for "tech equality", although I have used that phrase once. It's for emancipation from tech exploitation. Whether or not my argument satisfies the category of "collectivist argument" or "liberal argument" is irrelevant and just an appeal to the empty authority of political tribalism. That said, I am a communist, not a collectivist.

[Clash]

Hey now, at least we make the best moonshine in the world

 

I cannot argue with such impeccable logic!