Jump to content

James Spanier

Members
  • Posts

    832
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Blog Comments posted by James Spanier

  1. 3 minutes ago, Tevron said:

    Overall, I agree with you in your responses, but I'm a bit lukewarm on the first point. I think they do have a vague ideology (Moralism) but that it suffers several contradictions that their leadership have not yet successfully digested. The biggest of these is how they are willing to do anything for their friends, but how they also limit themselves with constraints based on the supposed moralism. For them it's clear that moralism > friends. Unfortunately, it doesn't jive to me very much as an ideology because it is very inconsistent.

     

    I'm sorry, which 'first point'? I don't recall saying they don't have an ideology in my first point, in fact I heavily implied there was one.

  2. 6 hours ago, Liltrekkie said:

    You apparently don't know our sphere too well then. None of us were required to hit the biggest threat, we wanted to hit the biggest threat, because we believed in defending our allies no matter the cost. Something CN has completely lost, we arennt called the moralist sphere for nothing. We aren't just allies, but true friends who have been there despite the overwhelming odds stacked against us. 

     

    Saying you're not ideologically required to hit the biggest threat in the same sentence where you say your sphere always wanted to (and thus, did/do) because that's what you believe in no matter the cost just reinforces that it is in fact an ideological requirement.

     

    6 hours ago, Liltrekkie said:

    Anytime a military conflict arose, it was our leadership following the coalitions wishes,

     

    I can personally attest to that not being true on several individual alliance levels and at least one coalition scale level, if not two (it's been like eight years now), and that's just off the top of my head. Often times it really did boil down to, as you yourself said above, "defending our allies no matter the cost" even if that meant making politically questionable decisions. Decisions that further increased the external view that the sphere was unreliable with regards to being political assets. However they were viewed as reliable as a very specific kind of strategic asset:

     

    6 hours ago, Liltrekkie said:

    to put it bluntly, we were cannon fodder for those bigger than us. At best, we were treated as irrelevant, and at worst, like garbage.

     

    As implied above, yes. When you have a sphere that is uncompromising in moralism and will immediately swarm in exactly predictable ways, the only way to fit them into your interests it using them as cannon fodder (see: Equilibrium War) or as meat shields (see: Doom War). It also makes them targets tactically to summon their allies (again, see: Doom War, though it goes back to Dave War and before too), which coincides with being a strategic liability (per the above: politically questionable decisions).

  3. From my collection, eh? Well lets see what I have...

    Webster's New World Dictionary with Student Handbook

    Better Homes and Gardens: Family Medical Guide

    Earth (The Book): A Visitor's Guide to the Human Race by The Daily Show Staff

    America (The Book): A Citizens Guide to Democracy Inaction by The Daily Show Staff

    America Again: Re-becoming the Greatness We Never Weren't

    by Stephen Colbert

×
×
  • Create New...