Words & Actions

[Artigo]

 

A raid necessarily involves imposing one's will on another nation/alliance - killing their citizens, invading their territory, and destroying/looting their property without their consent. If you don't recognize a nation's right to exist within it's own legal boarder, have its own legally acquired property, and have its citizens continue to live without being cut down, then I don't see what's left to make them a sovereign entity.

 

So at the very least, a raid is a violation of the sovereignty of the raided, even if you acknowledge them as an entity that otherwise gets to run their own affairs. If you engage in this violation repeatedly, with no remorse, then it's hard to say you buy into the right in the first place.

 

By all means they have the right to exist within their own legal borders, grow, and acquire resources thus sovereign.  However raiding, and military might is woven in the fabric of Doombird culture.  We are a warrior race and warfare is as much a sovereign right as anything else to us.  I can't expect you to understand the mentality, but just know it's not done with malice or hate it merely is.

[Lord Hershey]

 
By all means they have the right to exist within their own legal borders, grow, and acquire resources thus sovereign.  However raiding, and military might is woven in the fabric of Doombird culture.  We are a warrior race and warfare is as much a sovereign right as anything else to us.  I can't expect you to understand the mentality, but just know it's not done with malice or hate it merely is.

To further support Artigo's supposedly "warrior race":
 

Edited August 7, 2014 by Lord Hershey

[The Zigur]

Being a warrior has nothing to do with being a barbarian.

[Neo Uruk]

Tywin how about you just come out of PM and we'll all put the guns down!

[The Zigur]

Rey how did integrity get in your sig

[Dcrews]

There are no rights. Everything that is done or is not done is the result of an individual or group of individuals calculating pros and cons. If preventing you from doing something isn't worth the time, congratz you can keep doing it. That doesn't mean someone or a group of people with enough support can't take that "right" away from you.

 

God given rights on this planet do not exist.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

 

 

 

Without taking a position on Tywin's claims, I'd point out that being willing to go to war is no reason to respect someone, nor is their taking refuge in peace a reason to feel disdain. Attacking someone's nation in no way resolves the argument which prompted the attack. I'd also point out that one shouldn't engage in the informal 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, and further that standing by the merits of your arguments is not the same as sticking your ass out the window and waiting for a truck to pass by.

 

Edit: Augh, I can't type today! I keep putting words where they shouldn't be: "nor is their taking refuge in a peace reason to feel disdain." 

 

I would completely disagree with that statement, because hiding in PM is admitting that you aren't willing to take accountability for the words you speak here.  So one would be able to show up bad mouth as many alliances or individual nations that it wished to do so, but by hiding in PM you are basically a little Justin Bieber, talking shit and causing problems, and the second you cross the line and piss someone off you go hide behind your 5 350 pound bodyguards.  Its cowardly, pathetic, and immature.  If you want to stir the pot, you should be willing to put yourself on the line, and if you cant, why should anything you say be given any credibility?

[The Zigur]

I would completely disagree with that statement, because hiding in PM is admitting that you aren't willing to take accountability for the words you speak here.  So one would be able to show up bad mouth as many alliances or individual nations that it wished to do so, but by hiding in PM you are basically a little Justin Bieber, talking !@#$ and causing problems, and the second you cross the line and piss someone off you go hide behind your 5 350 pound bodyguards.  Its cowardly, pathetic, and immature.  If you want to stir the pot, you should be willing to put yourself on the line, and if you cant, why should anything you say be given any credibility?

 

Trust me bro, I already analyzed most of the threat nations in my strength range and I'm not worried about losing any battles. But I do enjoy how some of these guys reveal their uncivilized nature with their threats against nations with political opinions (even the well respected and neutral Jerdge!), disrespect for traditional politics and crude inability to discuss alliance sovereignty.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[MichaelH43ID]

I would completely disagree with that statement, because hiding in PM is admitting that you aren't willing to take accountability for the words you speak here.  So one would be able to show up bad mouth as many alliances or individual nations that it wished to do so, but by hiding in PM you are basically a little Justin Bieber, talking !@#$ and causing problems, and the second you cross the line and piss someone off you go hide behind your 5 350 pound bodyguards.  Its cowardly, pathetic, and immature.  If you want to stir the pot, you should be willing to put yourself on the line, and if you cant, why should anything you say be given any credibility?

Because credibility and one's exposure to violence have nothing to do with each other. Because accountability with respect to words, I would argue, ought not entail threats from those who disagree with you. There's a term for the sort of argumentation you're advocating--Might Makes Right--and it's probably the worst way to arrive at the truth. The claim that only those who can and are willing to put themselves in harm's way are entitled to credibility means that those who are unable to defend themselves are not credible, or that they should sacrifice themselves (as they'll most assuredly lose) for the sake of their credibility. Furthermore you cannot link credibility and ability to project force because, as the saying goes, war doesn't determine who is right... but only who is left. 

 

'Might Makes Right' is the sort of argument one hears from people who are all brawn and no brains. And before you think I'm referring to you, or anyone specific, I'm not. I'm simply saying that "I disagree with you, so come out and fight like a man!" implies an inability to win by other means. Namely, informed discourse. Now sometimes one can't win simply because one's opponent refuses to accept that he's lost, and keeps on going; trolling. In that case one ignores them. Or waits for them to go to War Mode and destroys them--but don't mistake that for an argumentative victory.

 

Ponder, for a moment, how many pot-stirrers would have been unable to achieve their ends if the first proverbial caveman to take issue with what they said demanded that they engage in fisticuffs to prove their point(s).

Edited August 7, 2014 by MichaelH43ID

[Artigo]

 

I'm not worried about losing any battles. 

 

I would completely disagree with that statement  :lol1: 

 

You're not fooling anyone bruh

[The Zigur]

Not gonna goad me out from behind my wall bruh

Edited August 7, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Because credibility and one's exposure to violence have nothing to do with each other. Because accountability with respect to words, I would argue, ought not entail threats from those who disagree with you. There's a term for the sort of argumentation you're advocating--Might Makes Right--and it's probably the worst way to arrive at the truth. The claim that only those who can and are willing to put themselves in harm's way are entitled to credibility means that those who are unable to defend themselves are not credible, or that they should sacrifice themselves (as they'll most assuredly lose) for the sake of their credibility. Furthermore you cannot link credibility and ability to project force because, as the saying goes, war doesn't determine who is right... but only who is left. 

 

'Might Makes Right' is the sort of argument one hears from people who are all brawn and no brains. And before you think I'm referring to you, or anyone specific, I'm not. I'm simply saying that "I disagree with you, so come out and fight like a man!" implies an inability to win by other means. Namely, informed discourse. Now sometimes one can't win simply because one's opponent refuses to accept that he's lost, and keeps on going; trolling. In that case one ignores them. Or waits for them to go to War Mode and destroys them--but don't mistake that for an argumentative victory.

 

Ponder, for a moment, how many pot-stirrers would have been unable to achieve their ends if the first proverbial caveman to take issue with what they said demanded that they engage in fisticuffs to prove their point(s).

 

I understand your point of view, but I assume since you are a fairly eloquent typist, that you have a fairly strong grasp on history.  So you would know that Might does in fact make right, and history is written by the winners.

 

I think you are assuming that there is civil discourse going on here, I would say otherwise, and would assert that people will be much more bold when they know that there are no consequences to their actions.  Which is basically what happens when they sit in peace mode.

 

If a nation is willing to sacrifice itself for the drivel that is constantly posted here, I would say that 100% gives them more credibility, because then it proves to me that they actually believe in what they are saying, and that they have some actual conviction.

 

As the old cliche goes, Talk is cheap.

 

I will openly admit however I would love to see a change to the forums where if you are in PM you cannot post on the OWF, and I have had this opinion for years.

[rileyaddaff]

To further support Artigo's supposedly "warrior race":
 

o/

[The Zigur]

 

I understand your point of view, but I assume since you are a fairly eloquent typist, that you have a fairly strong grasp on history.  So you would know that Might does in fact make right, and history is written by the winners.

 

I think you are assuming that there is civil discourse going on here, I would say otherwise, and would assert that people will be much more bold when they know that there are no consequences to their actions.  Which is basically what happens when they sit in peace mode.

 

If a nation is willing to sacrifice itself for the drivel that is constantly posted here, I would say that 100% gives them more credibility, because then it proves to me that they actually believe in what they are saying, and that they have some actual conviction.

 

As the old cliche goes, Talk is cheap.

 

I will openly admit however I would love to see a change to the forums where if you are in PM you cannot post on the OWF, and I have had this opinion for years.

 

Peace mode sacrifices my tax collections though

 

Also, don't feel the need to prove anything to anyone this time around after all this:

 

1) Leading IAA directly against NPO to defend GATO in 2008

2) Fighting from EZI in Vox Populi against Pacifican nations for several months in 2008

3) Volunteering to fight in Zulu against Mushqaeda last year

4) Pushing HB to fight on two fronts during Disorder

5) Targeting and anarchying low-tier NoR nukers to save other low tier nations

 

Yep. Sorry, I only fight to advance a cause, not to joust with some unwashed barbarians.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Neo Uruk]

So, what you're saying is, you're a terrible plotter and a terrible warrior. How do you only anarchy two nations in that whole mess?

[The Zigur]

So, what you're saying is, you're a terrible plotter and a terrible warrior. How do you only anarchy two nations in that whole mess?

 

Might be the fact I only target the most active threats and not inactive neutrals

[Neo Uruk]

Inactive neutrals? I believe TTE made a DoW that I countered. Also, I'm batting 1.000 in wars I've started. You've struck out 4 times and then walked to base, then got tagged out before even getting to 3rd. Some sad shit.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Neo Uruk

[The Zigur]

Inactive neutrals? I believe TTE made a DoW that I countered. Also, I'm batting 1.000 in wars I've started. You've struck out 4 times and then walked to base, then got tagged out before even getting to 3rd. Some sad !@#$.

 

What are you talking about?

[Neo Uruk]

The fact that your only "victory" was one in which you were tossed out of your alliance halfway through.

Let's play another game, unrelated to war records; raise your hand if you've been kicked out of NPO and Vox Populi.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Neo Uruk

[The Zigur]

The fact that your only "victory" was one in which you were tossed out of your alliance halfway through.

Let's play another game, unrelated to war records; raise your hand if you've been kicked out of NPO and Vox Populi.

 

lol, I have never been kicked out of NPO, Vox Populi or HB.

 

Have you been kicked out of an alliance you lead after falsely declaring war against a neutral alliance?