Tech Raider's and Small AA's Responsibilities

[Tick1]

[quote name='Phineas' timestamp='1335403559' post='2959393']
I think what they are saying is that while your definitions of might are proper, what you have avoided is defining anything for "right," other than it being whatever might produces. This is not a logical conclusion.

This also is why [b]how[/b] "might makes right" often is used in CN is in mostly fallacious ways: there is little or no consideration of what products result from manifestations of "might." All might makes right means in CN is might means power, which is really a tautology, which makes this a circular argument.

For reference, see [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum"]Argumentum ad baculum[/url].
[/quote]

All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

Interpretation being 'right' therefor I am right because my interpretation prevails at the given time due to my might. Or in this case, the mercy boards is the prevailing interpretation at the time therefor it is right.

Also no it's not a circular argument, whomever has the most power at the time also controls what is right.

Side note I read your link incorrect; The statement

If x accepts P as true, then Q.
Q is a punishment on x.
Therefore, P is not true.

True = Truth
Right =/= True or Truth
Right = Correctly or Accurately

Edited April 26, 2012 by Tick1

[Phineas]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1335415997' post='2959591']
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

Interpretation being 'right' therefor I am right because my interpretation prevails at the given time due to my might. Or in this case, the mercy boards is the prevailing interpretation at the time therefor it is right.

Also no it's not a circular argument, whomever has the most power at the time also controls what is right.
[/quote]

Now you are arguing that might by [i]prevailing[/i] military interpretation makes right by [i]prevailing[/i] interpretation? That also does not follow logically. It would be as if the mightiest military power were to assert that unicorns exist. It does not follow that the prevailing interpretation regarding the existence of unicorns will always agree. Now, what you can say by what you've limited yourself to in terms is [i]might [b]can[/b] make right[/i], [b]but only if the prevailing military and opinionative interpretations of what is right are aligned[/b].

Based on what I've read here in the variety of views on tech raiding presented, I don't see how anyone can claim any such alignment of powers exists, no matter how broadly defined or individually interpreted.


edit: to answer what you've added. I tried to meet you using your own terms above, since it is clear that what means something to most is not always interpreted the same way by you.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Phineas

[Tick1]

[quote name='Phineas' timestamp='1335420087' post='2959633']
Now you are arguing that might by [i]prevailing[/i] military interpretation makes right by [i]prevailing[/i] interpretation? That also does not follow logically. It would be as if the mightiest military power were to assert that unicorns exist. It does not follow that the prevailing interpretation regarding the existence of unicorns will always agree. Now, what you can say by what you've limited yourself to in terms is [i]might [b]can[/b] make right[/i], [b]but only if the prevailing military and opinionative interpretations of what is right are aligned[/b].

Based on what I've read here in the variety of views on tech raiding presented, I don't see how anyone can claim any such alignment of powers exists, no matter how broadly defined or individually interpreted.


edit: to answer what you've added. I tried to meet you using your own terms above, since it is clear that what means something to most is not always interpreted the same way by you.
[/quote]

You should define exist before using the term. Also by 'right' I mean morally. You are taking words out of context considering the argument we are having has nothing to do with existence or truth.

Also you are back under the assumption that when I use the term might I only refer to military power. Which isn't the only form power comes in as I stated in the earlier discussion with Jerdge.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Tick1

[jerdge]

Back to this discussion for a bit (I don't guarantee I'll stay).
[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1335422452' post='2959640']You should define exist before using the term. Also by 'right' I mean morally. You are taking words out of context considering the argument we are having has nothing to do with existence or truth.

Also you are back under the assumption that when I use the term might I only refer to military power. Which isn't the only form power comes in as I stated in the earlier discussion with Jerdge.[/quote]

You [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=110422&view=findpost&p=2957363"]started[/url] with saying that:
1. Individual rights don't exist.
2. A nation that was raided may receive reparations «[u][b][i]only[/i][/b][/u] because the [u][b][i]larger group[/i][/b][/u] can cause more damage than a single nation that is not protected».

I didn't address 1.
2 is exclusively about capability to cause damage (note your "only") on part of the group that protects the raided nation (note your "larger group" and the absence of any reference to customs or "rules" of any kind). The necessary interpretation is that you were talking of military damage (or possibly - but I don't believe you were meaning this - PR/political damage) because of the reaction on part of the protector. Nothing in your initial post justifies any following reference to the public opinion or similar, which is instead the crux of this matter.
I in fact [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=110422&view=findpost&p=2957933"]objected[/url] that 2 is false as customs and unwritten rules have a lot of weight in CN. A party doesn't need to have any form of (military, political) prevalence to make other "more powerful" parties look bad because they didn't follow this or that "widely accepted" custom.

You [i]then[/i] explicitly [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=110422&view=findpost&p=2957939"]introduced[/url] political capital in your discourse, to which I jokingly answered that you had agreed with me. I anyway thought and I still think that you didn't in fact change your position - on that you're correct.
You accepted "political influence" as part of "might", which is undoubtedly true, but you didn't accept the broader argument that there are social norms, which were [i]not[/i] imposed by force by anyone (dichotomy force/reason), and which limit the freedom of action of everyone - powerful or weak. Even a very powerful party can rarely afford to go against accepted social norms, and they always pay an high price for it - your historical example on Pacifica is spot on - but that's not because they don't have enough tanks or political leverage in comparison with the rest: it's because the majority of people in any party, their one [i]included[/i], is for some reason convinced that those social norms must be respected. Quite often - and in this case too, for a lot of observers - that respect is demanded due to moral visions.


I anyway feel that we're just running in circles around words and that we're not really addressing the meat of the issue. Going by some previous exchange (in some blog ITT) I'll go by the assumption that you're questioning the existence of "individual rights" and of "real" morality, which would be illusions, a creation of the weak to try limit the strong's freedom to act. In this framework, if one can't get away with something (e.g. raiding a nation despite some form of protection they might have), it's just because they can't muster enough "strength" to do it without consequences - i.e. the consequences they'd have to face make the act impractical or inconvenient.

Now I really think that morality and the concept of rights are more a matter of faith than anything else. Even if I am a casual nihilist and I quite "believe" (lol) in rationality, I don't think that having faith is anything wrong or stupid by itself - and I think that [i]it can't be avoided[/i] at all, anyway. Also note that I am not talking of religion. But I digress.

Back to the topic: as beliefs are a form of ideas any "morality" is essentially a set of ideas. Ideas may be "immaterial" (maybe no atoms/quarks there? Plato anyone?) but they surely possess a great capability of affecting actions, i.e. of changing reality. I'd call "power" whatever is capable of changing reality, thus [i]morality [b]is[/b] power[/i] ([url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=169031"]«Right is might»[/url]).
Any objection that morality, or any of its features, are illusionary and a "false idea", whilst only might/power "would matter", is intrinsically inconsistent, as morality is a form of power.

Now I get that the real objection is that many morality supporters claim that morality derives from something "superior" (a deity or some other more/less awkward belief), but there we enter the field of faith - what do we [i]like[/i] to think? - from which we can't come out with reasoning (only)... I'll just leave it there.

From a materialistic/"nihilist" POV the intrinsic nature of morality isn't important at all - for some it can't even be known, for that matter: [i]it works[/i], and that's all that counts: you may dislike it or not, but you'd better be prepared to deal with it.

By the way, it's ironically terribly flawed to complain that "morality" and "rights" would be illusionary concepts the weak chained the strong with: if power is all that counts (or all that exists, even) whatever the "weak" chained the "strong" with [i]is "fair" as long as it works[/i]. Or rather, (un)fairness don't make sense at all, and the alleged "strong" that complains has no ground to stand on: either he breaks his chains or he's [i]the real weak[/i] and should just shut up...
[i](Hallo Nietzsche how are you I am fine thank you.)[/i]

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Truly excellent post Jerdge.

I think this is interesting, because it's where Sardonic and I actually agree, against Tick. Although I see him as being a bit inconsistent, and you take him to task for that gently enough, he seems to keep wanting to tell us that community standards or morality or whatever is illusory. I agree with Sardonic it's very real. Just exactly what the nature of the thing is can be a lot of fun to debate, but clearly it is a real force, and it is clearly not directly attributable to brute power politics, at least not without a fairly long chain of logic.