Bird of Passage

I...do not believe that you wish this question answered, my friend. I have few other words. I suppose that I would offer my praise; however, as the former half of the quoted query reads, this is rather redundant. Congratulations on...continuing to hold positive relations with Invicta, perhaps? The Bird narrowed his eyes in thought, somewhat mulling over whether or not this was mere redundancy. But he would otherwise be silent, all the same.

The Bird looked skeptical. Optional...why...? He shook his head as he looked away. May this be corrected soon...

Unfortunately, I have missed it. The Bird sullenly trudged away.

The Bird strolled in. Oh bloody god, we are arguing of mores? He chuckled a bit. Well...since I've nothing better to do... Fact. Moral. Opinion. The latter two seem to be confused, here. An opinion is a personal dictation regarding...anything, really. They are oft stated as if to be fact, whether the speaker intends this or not, but they cannot be right or wrong, because they are statements of what the speaker thinks something should be, or should be thought as such. For example... "Abortion is the same as murder, and is wrong." OR "Abortion is not the same as murder, and is a choice." OR "Dead babies are tasty. Moar." All of these are differing opinions on how something should be (let us assume that the three given speakers are all well-educated and completely serious). Now, here is where the confusion happens: All of those statements, while opinions, are based on morals. Morals are the personal, ethical guidelines that one's opinions are drawn from (though, opinions may also arise from speculation, where morality is not always necessarily a factor). With that said, since morals are personal, they cannot be objective, and thus, nor can opinions. They can be imposed on others, though, yes. Morals affect not only opinions, but laws. Laws carry more weight than opinions do (so long as there is someone or something there to enforce them), for they are essentially decrees by officials or rulers of a given body on what can legally be done and what cannot. However, laws, like morals and opinions, can change at any given time, and some can be removed, or added. They are necessary for societies to function, but they are no more objective than morals or opinions for those very reasons. And laws are about as close to objectivity as one can get. The reason that morals, like opinions, cannot be inherently right or wrong is because there is no clearly-defined ethic (or, "what ought to be"). The reason that there is no clear ethic is because there is no being capable of defining it. Some would argue that God does. I disagree, not just because I am an Atheist, but because such a being would be beyond human comprehension or mental and physical limits. I don't pretend to understand religious practice, but I doubt that any human truly understands whatever God's will is, and I doubt that anyone ever will. In essence, again, there is no clearly-defined ethic; it would be like trying to determine the existence of God itself. Then again, like God's existence, it cannot be proven not to exist. So I suppose moralists will need to pick a set of morals and hope for the best. Morals may be guiding principles, but they are not objective facts, or necessarily laws either. The fact that some may be shared by many, are compatible with laws, and are imposed with the expectations of others following them does not change this, nor does that occur even when those others conform (Conformity =/= Moral Compatibility) and I am sorry to say that there is nothing that anyone can do about this.

The Bird stared blankly at many of the people that had come from all corners of Digiterra to present their input. He then shook his head. Before the day preceding yesterday, on October 27, 2009, I posted for the first time in nearly a month's time. It was not necessarily deliberate...but it was a nice respite from this seemingly-non-fluctuating environment that has, in all irony and disappointment, established itself since the end of the Karma War. To be fair, some things have changed: the world is now multi-polar, and it seems that things have slowed down immensely. The latter, while sounding peaceful, is, in my view as a former Voxian, anticlimactic...I wanted something more along the lines of a more chaotic, yet equal world, where coalitions of equal or near-equal strength battle for supremacy in an attempt to seal the power vacuum. Instead, things are more stagnant than they were before. Dreadful. Utterly dreadful. What has not changed, however, is the shallow attitude that still plagues the masses as if to be maggots feeding on the decaying flesh of a starved child, burned and left out in the sun. And yet again, I am disappointed. Do I believe that Francesca's course of action in dumping these logs was necessary? No. Was it so important that it absolutely needed to be done? No. Is Francesca one who simply enjoys sparking discussions? Indeed she is. Disgusting...the lot of you who "don't care." Those of you who have come here thinking yourselves great by asserting your supposed lack of interest. It must be something that absolutely needs to be done, isn't it? How very curious... It is all right, of course. That self-defeating paradox of asserting one's own indifference will never cease to be entertaining. Keep at it, my dear friends. If nothing else (and I am indeed quite sure that there really is nothing else), you shall make good entertainers. Those of you not doing this are almost as dismissive: she is nothing more than an attention whore, isn't she? Someone who should have silenced herself long ago? This is painful to watch. It is the same narrow-mindedness that infects the people here without any vaccine. In most of you, I see very little insight behind the words that you post. Whether or not she is an attention whore is irrelevent. It becomes your failing when you overlook or dismiss what she presents based solely on that. And I see many failures here. Too many. Do you need to like Francesca? Agree with her? Hold her near and dear? Not at all. But still, this seems to be more of a game played based upon who is the more popular, or at least, the lesser hated. And that, my friends, is a failure of logic. Frankly, I hope that you all burn, and decay, and that the maggots consume you shortly afterward. Fitting, I think, given how much else is already decayed. I am tired...I take my leave.

The Bird said nothing, expressed nothing, and otherwise made little noticeable or physical reaction to this declaration. Instead, he merely reached into his garments and procured a knife of a particularly bright shine, as if polished thousands of times over a short period. Though it was obviously honed, he ran his finger across the edge. A drop of blood splashed upon the ground. The knife's surface reflected the smile that followed.

The Bird watched this momentous occasion from afar, as was his own personal tradition to do so. He raised one hand in the air, then slowly moved it back down to his side in a half-circle. Hm. He then nodded once, turned, and departed.

To my knowledge, she, in fact, did attempt the due process of bringing forth issues to the attention of the government. The government, however, was far too cautious and naïve to act. It was after their complacency that she...we, I suppose it could be...set out to attempt something else...something less legal, and likely more unsavory. Again, I point out the rather narrow view of treachery. Did she work against the process? Yes, she did...and rightly so. But I regard the government's general inflexibility to these issues to be a more blinding culprit. It is not impossible to show one's loyalty through what is technically treason. The alternative is to leave...abandon the alliance...throw down what draws one to their home. She stayed, and tried. That is why I do not view her as a traitor. The Bird sighed. But then...I suppose I am not MCXA...I never was, and likely never will be. I can derive some gratitude for you for at least recognizing her motive...most of the time, though, the lot of you come across as blind, and it is troubling. Learn to forgive, my friends...relinquishing one's grudges is not such a terrible thing.

Just as the government cares for theirs. This will quickly devolve into whose intent was better for MCXA, and for that matter, what the intentions were, and frankly, I am not interested in participating in such a circular discussion. As I have said countless times, think what you will. Your opinion is, again, your own.

Your system does not have the necessary checks and balances on the leadership to make it such a simple notion as that, and quite frankly, time was running short. I understand your disdain for her methods, but one must realize that what needed to be done...needed to be done quickly, and without delay. It was a failure anyway, however, because of your paradoxical charter prohibiting political parties. My problem is not that you took action against her...I cannot expect you to simply allow the rules to be broken...my problem is that you all assume that she did it for malevolent purposes, like any common traitor would...such was not the case. She did so because she cared for MCXA. And once the alliance turned its back on her through impeachment, she turned her back on you, and thus, did you two war. But, as I said...I grow weary of this...and there is little more that I can say...you may take my words for what you will. Your opinions and views shall ever be your own.

I cannot change your view, no matter how logical mine is, or how forcefully I present it, suffice to say that, speaking as one who has been her comrade (as she is mine) since the Vox Populi Resistance Movement, you are quite simply, wrong. There is a large difference between manipulation and a perceived propensity to falter in one's loyalty to their alliance. I am willing to admit that she made some unsightly mistakes while in Viridia...mistakes that I should have call her upon...however, she has never committed any action with the explicit and gross intent of betraying her closest friends, and that viewpoint only exists because the lot of you cannot muster the intestinal fortitude to fathom the possibility that reasons are no so cut and dry. I must admit, I grow quite weary of this...you all act as if she destroyed all that you have built. I am speaking to Viridia and the MCXA in this instance...the latter was a corrupt and faulty structure at best, completely unwilling to relinquish their own naïvete regarding their association with the Hegemony. I see now that even attempting to steer them away from it was a lost cause from the beginning...there is no variation in thought with you people, Hegemony or no. It is always some narrow-minded view whenever it comes to someone who attempts to amend the system even slightly. Instead of attempting to understand why it is that she attempted what she attempted, instead you label her a traitor. You label all who would do so as traitors, worthy only of your scorn, but none of your thought. You are fools...single-minded, inflexible fools. But it is of no consequence. I hold no hope for any of you. Continue to indulge your primitive mindsets. I suppose, in a political world that thinks just as you do, you will take yourself farther for it. Disgusting creatures...

Why must she be your enemy?

I would also offer my Technology to this wager...I shall pay half of that 500 units.

I must clarify that I have nothing against Kevin McDonald, and merely made that post and changed my signature for the sake of irony. Myself and Francesca both got something of a chuckle out of it. I make no claim to be more relevant than he, nor any that he is irrelevant at all. Yes, I realize that that essentially amounts to trolling...such is likely why your response is so amusing...but I am, shall we say...incredibly bored. As to your view regarding Voxians in Pacifica, that is yours to have and yours alone...however, Vox Populi never set any specific value claiming that a given Voxian could never join Pacifica. In fact, many Voxians joined with the hope that Pacifica would change its ways. Whether it has or not is yet to be seen...but I know that you are intelligent, Stumpy...I would think you above taking a "guilty by association" stance.

Now, now, Francesca...at least try to be tactful...I, for one, I am always interested in what all have to say on these matters.