ktarthan

See, that's how I'm reading it as well... but I have a hard time comprehending it that way. I just can't imagine anyone (or a collection of people) being so... what's that word? Stupid?

I wasn't trying to encapsulate the entire conflict with my analogy, I was simply trying to point out that when you go against standard conventions, you do not deserve sympathy. I don't think RLMMO is asking for sympathy, but plenty of people seem far too willing to give it. Past that, I think it's a lacking analogy, and I feel my nerd analogy earlier in the thread is much more suiting. All I am trying to figure out, in RLMMO's words, what possible reason they could have for retaliating in such a way? I know that it is their stated 'policy' to take such an action, but I can't fathom why.

But I can't understand the extreme escalation. I was tech raided as a small nation. I got aid from my allies. I proceeded to reduce the raiding nation to embers. It was cathartic. It was fun. Also I don't buy the "sitting in fear of getting raided" bit. If they are in a position where tech raiding is common, then change your situation. If you do not want to take steps to secure your nation, then it is naught but your own fault. Maybe I like to play in traffic, but I don't like having to worry about getting hit by cars, so I'm going to go throw myself in front of the next one?

Okay so. You do not wish to be raided. Gotcha. When exactly, when you were thinking about ways to respond to raids did you think "suicide run against two larger alliances" was a good idea? Net result of being raided: loss of resources from the targeted nation. Net result of being rolled: loss of many many resources from pretty much every nation. When the first result is undesirable, how does it follow that the second is better? If your reasoning is to perhaps teach GOONS a lesson, or to deter us from raiding, you obviously don't know much about GOONS. (Tee hee I finally got to say that! B)) If otherwise, I would love to hear it, because so far I have not been able to discern a decent motivation to your actions, other than showboating.

We're getting dogpiled!

C'mooooooon.

deSouza, I don't feel like wading through quotes, so I'm going to start again and try to clarify a few things. I'll redact my assertion that you were making a strawman (and other statements based around this), as I now see your thought process. Maybe a little too much hot blood on my part. Initial Argument: Kap Bambino is in line with previous policy, in attacking moralist alliances. Rebuttal: Nah uh! Regardless of any discussion had between then and now, Kap Bambino has stated it does not believe GOONS to be a moralist alliance. This directly refutes your initial argument. Unless all along you've been saying "Kap Bambino is consistent in attacking people I see as moralists". Then I'll just feel silly, as I can't dictate who you are going to call a moralist.

Unless you've been arguing someone else's views of moralism (which I truly hope you have not, because that would just be silly), then this is basically entirely false. There was one (1) post about Kap Bambino's "switch from moralism to anti-moralism". From that point, the discussion was entirely focused around whether or not GOONS is a moralist alliance, and the "for" side was argued entirely by you, using (what I assume is) your view of moralism. Even if this strawman was even true (which I emphasize it is not), that has absolutely zero (0) relevance to what you have been debating, which is "Is GOONS a moralist alliance?" GOONS has said we are not. Vil(l)ien (a self-described moralist) has said we are not. Kap Bambino himself has said we do not fit into his views of moralism. That being said, would you like to try to assert GOONS is a moralist alliance again?

I take offense at the insinuation that I would ever play football.

Would you let me know where you found a knife that can split hairs that thin? You are still making a claim about Kap Bambino's views on moralism, and GOONS's place within them, and continuing to argue that point with your own views of moralism. (Apologies if you are Kap Bambino's moral representitive, but it seemed to me like you have been representing your own views here) Regardless, I will correct my previous statement.

Whether or not Kap Bambino attacked us because we are "moralists" or not depends on whether or not that was the reason, and what Kap Bambino actually defines as a "moralist". What you would call a "moralist" has no bearing on this. To illustrate: "I like fruits, like apples, oranges, and bananas" "Some people call homosexuals 'fruits', so you must like them too!"

It depends on what definition of "morality" you are discussing here. Objective or subjective? If you're arguing that we're subjective moralists (which I believe you are), then sure the first definition works. Everyone is a subjective moralist. It's a moot point. We all take actions based on our own personal beliefs and ideals. Subjective 'immoralists' do not exist. What we are trying to say is that we aren't objective moralists. We have our ideals, but those ideals are generally not the accepted norm.

in⋅teg⋅ri⋅ty –noun 1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty. 2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire. 3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull. I'm glad you understand that the English language can sometimes, on occasion, assign more than exactly one meaning to a single word.

Yes but maybe if your member wasn't wearing such provocative tech... Edit: On a more serious note, however, in your analogy it would stand that in "a fit of rage", your family members would actually have gone around raping "anyone in sight directly affiliatied with these diseased rapists", as an attack has incurred an attack in kind. So, all you are doing is escalating the situation in a ridiculous manner.

Let us say that you are a nerd attending highschool. One day two jocks* shake you down for some lunch money. After school you get your nerd buddies together and ambush the jocks* and their friends after school. Sure you manage to bite and scratch a couple of them, but inevitably you all spend the next few months eating through a tube. Was it the right thing to do? Maybe. Was it in your right to do so? Sure. Was it incredibly stupid? Absolutely. * fatter nerds

Sorry guys, gonna have to bail on this one. Got a better offering in my alliance, and this doesn't seem to have much interest.

I'll get in on this; Aluminum and Fish http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=369789