Bernard

Its an upgrade from laural wreaths crowning obese sith fanboys.

The foetal position does not give itself to auditing.

Pretty childish philosophy, I guess that is why NSO are incapable of controlling their fear of UME.

UME does not condone that sort of behaviours what is your IRC channel?

I think presupposing that this is a place for rational discussion and not for art, drama, comedy &c is a little obtuse.

hello everybody, good to see that you are keeping yourselfs entertained with humorous threads like this

UME hereby declares war on Nirvana for the bolded parts.

That is pretty much what I am objecting to in this thread, to be clear, not that I will act in my self-interest, but that I act at all, as francoism presumes I do. The rest of francoism is not the topic of this thread.

Relevance?

Trying to rebuff the state of nature as a collectivity prior to your individual cannot be rebuff'd by treating my examples with a counter-assertion, counter-assertions will be my prerogative, and I maintain them as long as my opponent maintains nonargument in the area where my interests is peaked. As he can see that his state of nature is quite undefended he will ride hither and attack the Typhoeus-like objection growing there. The 'state of nature' is affected on Cybernations because there is a forum, however, and emphasis on this -in its natural state Cybernations has a forum, as well as - as you say quite correctly - no universal morality, and contrariwise - some laws. It is true that you emphasise the plausability of the francoist state of nature and conceal its weaknesses overso. Your state of nature causes grave offense to the reality of pixels and much more code here! (Though that is not a moral claim, for those who insist I make some morality in the subtility and spinosity of these paragraphs) You do not marry with the facts of the true state of nature in Cybernations; it is rather obvious too that there cannot be self-interest'd individuals when cybernations is prefigured by group-interest'd collectives a priori. Bless Hobbes but there is no war of all against all here in the state of nature - though there is wars here. And do not by word order confuse this as a justification, but in cybernations a nation can't go to war for two days when it first registers, though this is crucial, I would rather it stayed as a crucial objection on its own and not build a lofty critique when each stand so singularly on their own more upright without leaning on each other falsely. As before exempla sunt odiosa. The state of nature as a basis for all your francoist morality is flaw'd, if only in a shallow way, there are so many objections to Hobbes which can be given to you, as charity, a passel of truth. I do object when people say your francoist eudaemonistic morality is wrong tout de suite, taken with everything you say too, for that is ridiculous, and though your metaphysics is false, any morality can pull itself up by its bootstraps, and yours without the francoist state of nature very easily. An objection would need to be raised against that separate but here I will not do that because we are almost in agreemony as to our conclusions, though we wildly diverge because my morality has no basis in Hobbesian metaphysics or any adaption thereof. Though my agreemony thereto won't purse my lips on my other points. I think you'll find that without such allusions we will soon blunt our wits and have no clear idea where the francoists state of nature is derived. But also, your Hobbesian francoist state of nature is a silly thesis, and therefore merits derision just as it merits explanation, justification, refutation and so forth. Although you are incognito about this very heavy influence on a particular part of your theory, I think you will find the more I paint it as a vulgar copying the more people will realise that it is at the very least this, until you patch this dike I have forthwith unpatch'd. Though you may instead parry with my summary here, in its metaphor, rather than the actual scribble built under it, or deny this and run away! Come back and be a man! Yes all good charlatans accuse their oponents, or the world, of some ignorance, and it informs very little for it is not the revelation of a state of being, which is still an ad hominem if it is untrue, and a red herring if it is not. Ignorance is though, or was, a thing of entertainment long ago in Christian times when people did not know Jesus. Today it is more an allusion to this or its crass opposite, and a thing of name calling - and that is a mean coincidence for you who preach somekind of piety and purity in debate, which I call bluntness and witless, as the prior of the ignorati.

Your conception of 'individual interests' as that is related to the thesis of their coming into the world faced with a brutish existence and war (a kind of clumsy way of parroting Hobbes), is false, not because the conditions are otherwise, although they really are, but because I know that the 'interests' are prefigured by collectivity, and not some individual dilemma. Collectives are prior to the individuals, and they thereby shape and mold the interests of the individuals which enter the game. It could not be otherwise in an abstract environment like this cyberverse, where collectivity is performed and prefigured by so many features, including the very forum we are speaking on, and many more examples, exempla sunt odiosa. This is not anti- or pro- francoism, as that implies it is a creed or a belief of somekind, when it is clearly an ethical and political system built on an absurd metaphysics to which I direct my objection. Consider this a refutation of the first principles of francoism, as they are falsely conceived out of hobbesian copypasta.

Perhaps you can make the necessary edits here: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/An_Intr...on_to_Francoism where I refer to the very Hobbesian individualistic account of the state of nature where you construct francoism from the 'problems' facing the individual nation up: 'The Francoist analysis of our world is complex, but it can nevertheless be summerised in simple terms. The natural world that we see around us is a brutal one: a world where no law, no morality*, and no right or wrong exist. Individuals are open to do whatever they will and to take from others whatever they desire. Nations exist, in short, in a constant war and fear. With the constant threat of attack bearing down on them and no reliable comrade to help, nations cannot develop or pursue their desires; all they can do is endeavour to survive against the insurmountable odds.' *no adjectives. In your Hobbesian francoist theory the individuals discern their own interests, and then pass them on to the collective, or at least this is how the above reads with what you are saying: and this is exactly what my bolded objection addresses.

Perhaps you should respond to everything I said in the fullness of my editing, it may alter your understanding of my objection. And as you say about the lack of a universal morality, I say there is no such thing anyway, but that you said something (and perhaps you will go and edit), there is 'no morality' fullstop in Cybernations; and that is in your Introduction to francoism. If it were not so isolated and so unclear that you meant 'no universal morality' I wouldn't care to say, I'm not interested in hansardising people who scribble about a lot of things unless they deceive me. Unless you mean to say, and this can be made clear, that in the natural state (where the individual nation is the only existent entity amongst other entities ungroup'd) there is no morality, it is introduced afterward, as an artificial thing, an artefact or artifice.

Physical laws cannot be changed. If they can, they are no longer physical laws. No physical laws exist here in any meaningful sense, and everything that simply exists right now, if we apply the metaphor of 'universe' to this game, is predicated on the wont of God. This is not the case in the world from which you and me originate, where individuals (humans nonetheless, with psychical tools to discern this or that) may discern some unchangeable things concerning matter, which are called physical laws. And what a terrible analogue you have given. In a universe with physical laws, and seemingly without a deity (or with one who does not change them) walking off a cliff may indeed kill you - and to survive - you will choose not to walk off the cliff. OR do you? How much of the choice is yours, is any of it yours? In this world you have been preconditioned from birth with the immorality and undesirability of death, collective forces made and sculpted you very much so have they not? And thus, your choice here, very rational at first, is by rational inculcation to begin with, acculturation and socialisation have bred you to desire the opposite of this. Or maybe they haven't, maybe this individuality of yours is supreme, unconqurable and prior to any such collective influence or control; but prove it. You see without your crude individualistic thesis, calculating the desirability of actions becomes less obviously calculable, self-interest gives way to group-interest - and you haven't constructed francoism from the top down for this, and thus if motivation moves away from the individual, self-interest likewise, and thus your thesis falls apart. Unless you reconstruct it from the top down, that I would like to see. The bottom-up approach at the moment is barely coherent as it is, seething with problems and showing that you have just imported Hobbes in his rawest without an intelligent adaption. Furthermore it is mere equivocation without fact to state this world and this 'game' are analogous; to wit, they are not. And their physical laws are completely different, and the makeup of the individual entities totally different, one organic, another abstract code. And the motivational forces of both is as yet undetermined by francoist theory. All of that theory predicated on faith - or do you have better arguments - in an individualistic metaphysics, which somehow (it is unclear) motivates man through this abstract spaghetti of code, discerning values 'good=survival' and 'bad=tech raid', and forth. Even though (as you have said in the introduction to francoism) there exists no morality here.

Its more likely that the francoists will affect superiority to argument, any charlatan worth his market-stool shall do the same.