A Critique on Voxism

[Unko Kalaikz]

Voxism focuses more on conflict for two reasons. First, it is far easier to derive meaning from conflict. Secondly, because this world understand cooperation, far better than a Voxist would like. It needs no lecture on it. However, you are correct, Voxism should include some sort of study on the nature of cooperation.

Don't study too hard or you'll turn into a Francoist

I explain in Voxism that working to appeal to peasants that will always be happy enough to never rebel or cause any sort of trouble, or heck, think at all for themselves, is pointless.

As for self interests, well, as a Voxist, one of my self interests is causing conflict. :jihad:

Your duty as a nation ruler is not to appeal to the peasants, it is to advance the interests of your nation; one way of doing this is to make the people happier, as it improves the governments revenue collection.

As for your second point, your interests are not aligned with the interests of your nation, which is why it is in the gutter so to speak.

[Earogema]

Your duty as a nation ruler is not to appeal to the peasants, it is to advance the interests of your nation; one way of doing this is to make the people happier, as it improves the governments revenue collection.

As for your second point, your interests are not aligned with the interests of your nation, which is why it is in the gutter so to speak.

No, my nation loves war. Its interests are for that purpose. I'll be damned if some leper with a mask tells me what my nation wants!

Edited February 12, 2009 by MegaAros

[Unko Kalaikz]

All violence is needless when your entire thesis on the world is based upon stats.

The scientific method relies upon objective statistics. This is why francoism is scientific, it is materialist and based upon an analysis of objective data and mechanics. This makes francoism much more useful as a tool of guidance for the nation leader than say voxism.

Would you'd rather your national doctor be a francoist who believes in science or a Voxian who believes in a subjectivist approach?

Doctor Franco: Take this pill, it is objectively proven to cure your disease.

Doctor Voxo: Take this flower instead, I like how it smells.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Earogema]

The scientific method relies upon objective statistics. This is why francoism is scientific, it is materialist and based upon an analysis of objective data and mechanics. This makes francoism much more useful as a tool of guidance for the nation leader than say voxism.

Would you'd rather your national doctor be a francoist who believes in science or a Voxian who believes in a subjectivist approach?

Voxian.

They would use unorthodox experiments which may or may not, result in superpowers.

That or death.

[Unko Kalaikz]

No, my nation loves war. Its interests are for that purpose. I'll be damned if some leper with a mask tells me what my nation wants!

rofl

As Vladimir explained, "national polling" is not a guage for what your nations interests really are. Even if a hundred percent of your people favored cutting their feet off, this would result in decreased productivity and so forth and would not be in the interests of your nation.

Voxian.

They would use unorthodox experiments which may or may not, result in superpowers.

That or death.

Been drinking that mercury your doctor proscribed?

Edited February 12, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Earogema]

rofl

As Vladimir explained, "national polling" is not a guage for what your nations interests really are. Even if a hundred percent of your people favored cutting their feet off, this would result in decreased productivity and so forth and would not be in the interests of your nation.

Indeed. As I explain in Voxism, what the nation wants is up to the ruler because the people of that nation cannot even think for themselves. So it's all up to me what those interests are.

I could care less about your stats. I live and rule, how I wish.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Indeed. As I explain in Voxism, what the nation wants is up to the ruler because the people of that nation cannot even think for themselves. So it's all up to me what those interests are.

I could care less about your stats. I live and rule, how I wish.

Which basically makes you the despot keeping your nation down, not NPO.

[Earogema]

Which basically makes you the despot keeping your nation down, not NPO.

I can't wait till your citizens demand a dictatorship.

[Chickenzilla]

My people would prefer to die a horrible death rather than take any prescribed drug.

[Vladimir]

Admin can prove his existence to any of us by completely annihilating our very conscience from this plane.

So yes, I believe I can "feel" him.

This argument doesn't really matter though. Whether or not Admin exists doesn't void any argument in Voxism, and in fact, would only strengthen that there really is no inherent meaning in the world if Admin really didn't exist.

Yes, admin can (and does) prove his existence in this way. It is proven because we can witness the effects of his actions (as well as him directly). But we can do the same for me, for you, for Count da Silva, for Ferrous, and for Kermit the Frog. Admin isn't different from anyone else in this regard. Yes, his actions can be much more destructive (or creative) than anyone else's, but by the logic of Voxism that shouldn't make his existence any more 'objectively discernible' than the others listed.

This argument is more important than you think, going as it does to the heart of Voxism. If you hold that the existence of admin is the "only one absolute, objective, truth" then you must cast aside the founding premise of the ideology. If you hold that the founding premise remains accurate, then you must cast aside the only one absolute, objective, truth of the ideology. And if you hold that both are true then you should vacate the institutions of higher learning immediately and start work on a church.

[Earogema]

Yes, admin can (and does) prove his existence in this way. It is proven because we can witness the effects of his actions (as well as him directly). But we can do the same for me, for you, for Count da Silva, for Ferrous, and for Kermit the Frog. Admin isn't different from anyone else in this regard. Yes, his actions can be much more destructive (or creative) than anyone else's, but by the logic of Voxism that shouldn't make his existence any more 'objectively discernible' than the others listed.

This argument is more important than you think, going as it does to the heart of Voxism. If you hold that the existence of admin is the "only one absolute, objective, truth" then you must cast aside the founding premise of the ideology. If you hold that the founding premise remains accurate, then you must cast aside the only one absolute, objective, truth of the ideology. And if you hold that both are true then you should vacate the institutions of higher learning immediately and start work on a church.

Incorrect. Voxism only believes Admin exists. Other than this, he does nothing. Voxians are free to do what they will.

Voxism rests upon the idea of free will. This is why Admin may or may not exist in Voxism. What is important is if that Admin interfers with our free will, which our current Admin does not.

The only reason he is a truth is simple. He is a truth. If I were to say a rock is brown because it is in fact, brown, then that's all well and fine, but what does that proof have to do with me personally? It doesn't.

OOC: Think of it as Deism if you must.

[Vladimir]

You're the one who asserted that "Admin can prove his existence to any of us by completely annihilating our very conscience from this plane."

Regardless, my point still stands. You claimed that his existence was the "only absolute, objective, truth" and your justification for that is 'just because'? Given this and your final sentence, can I assume that you have taken my third option?

[Chickenzilla]

You're the one who asserted that "Admin can prove his existence to any of us by completely annihilating our very conscience from this plane."

Regardless, my point still stands. You claimed that his existence was the "only absolute, objective, truth" and your justification for that is 'just because'? Given this and your final sentence, can I assume that you have taken my third option?

Do you believe in god?

[Earogema]

You're the one who asserted that "Admin can prove his existence to any of us by completely annihilating our very conscience from this plane."

Regardless, my point still stands. You claimed that his existence was the "only absolute, objective, truth" and your justification for that is 'just because'? Given this and your final sentence, can I assume that you have taken my third option?

I honestly don't know why you're investing this kind of time in disproving this argument.

Look, if Admin doesn't exist, there is no objective truth, and what's more there is absolutely no possible inherent meaning. All this would mean is that Voxists must create meaning and that absolutely everything is subjective.

Also, I suppose I can claim just because on subjective belief.

Finally, I ask of you, would you dare challenge his scripture in a scientific proof to prove me wrong? Go ahead, use your science to find him, and see how he will annihilate your senses and mind from this plane without any possible observable phenomena.

Edited February 12, 2009 by MegaAros

[Vladimir]

I'm investing time into it (though a paragraph doesn't take all that much time to be honest with you) because you asserted that it is the one absolute, objective, truth. It seems a worthy thing to investigate if this "one absolute, objective, truth" fails your own tests for determining what an objective truth is.

The problem posed by this question is demonstrated amply by your own wobbling, your position of: 'it is... but if it isn't it doesn't matter anyway... stop looking at me!' Your statement that "Admin may or may not exist in Voxism" followed in the very next paragraph by "He is a truth." It makes no sense. If you admit your error it may well have no bearing on the rest of your claims (which are equally absurd though for other reasons), but that doesn't remove the fact that you made the assertion in the first place and continue to (half-heartedly) defend it.

If you claim 'just because' on subjective belief then you have abandoned the position that he is the "one absolute, objective, truth." Which is it, make up your mind.

And here he is: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showuser=1

And here: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=289940

And precedent would suggest many other places without our knowledge.

[Earogema]

I'm investing time into it (though a paragraph doesn't take all that much time to be honest with you) because you asserted that it is the one absolute, objective, truth. It seems a worthy thing to investigate if this "one absolute, objective, truth" fails your own tests for determining what an objective truth is.

The problem posed by this question is demonstrated amply by your own wobbling, your position of: 'it is... but if it isn't it doesn't matter anyway... stop looking at me!' Your statement that "Admin may or may not exist in Voxism" followed in the very next paragraph by "He is a truth." It makes no sense. If you admit your error it may well have no bearing on the rest of your claims (which are equally absurd though for other reasons), but that doesn't remove the fact that you made the assertion in the first place and continue to (half-heartedly) defend it.

If you claim 'just because' on subjective belief then you have abandoned the position that he is the "one absolute, objective, truth." Which is it, make up your mind.

And here he is: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showuser=1

And here: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=289940

And precedent would suggest many other places without our knowledge.

My God...it's like talking to a wall that keeps spouting the same irrelevant nonsense over and over again.

Admin is objective because in order to even exist, one must trust in his existence. Our existence is tied to him. We need no senses to experience this phenomenon.

Also, since admin's existence exists as a PARADOX in Voxism, removing admin just makes it easier for us. Admin allows for free will to be cast aside, or destiny to exist. These things are the antithesis to Voxism. What part of that do you not understand?

If you'd like, here: Admin doesn't exist objectively. There. Happy now? Now, from that, ruin the entirely of Voxist philosophy. I dare you to harness that point, and that point alone as a mechanism to destroy Voxism.

OOC: You are debating a joke. I threw admin's existence in there as a joke, just because I knew saying there is no God in CN would be taken with the joke of "lol, ur rong XD, adminsim is phunny." Since all of this is based on SECULAR Existentialism, it's quite obvious why this argument means little to me if I lose it.

[Vladimir]

Admin's existence is not obvious through our own existence (and does that now mean that our existence is an "absolute, objective, truth"? This would be another change to your theory), and the powers that you attribute to him are even less so. Perhaps we naturally evolved here, or appeared out of nowhere for no reason, or perhaps... etc. The possibilities -- natural and supernatural -- are infinite. While, for the rest of us, Admin's existence is indeed obvious, for you and Voxism any number of other possibilities should be just as "objectively true" as the obvious one.

You are therefore arguing in reverse. You know that X is true and that to claim otherwise opens you up to easy attack, and thus you were forced to try and justify the conclusion regardless of how flawed the logic behind it was. Ultimately it was a rejection, and indeed, a fear, of the logical conclusions your own theory.

Why is this important? Well, for a number of reasons. But the only one I am interested in here is that a great deal depends on how you answer the contradiction between theory and conclusion. As I noted earlier, if you continue to claim that Admin is an objective truth then you are throwing out the theory's founding premise, and this must be taken into consideration in any investigation of the theory -- or indeed, any practical outcomes that you hope to develop from it. Likewise, if you reject that Admin is an objective truth then, while it may or may not play an important part in the rest of your theory, it remains a sufficiently glaring error right at the centre of it. In this way it isn't necessarily the question itself that is important but your response to it and its potential ramifications.

So you have missed the point by a fairly wide margin. That his lack of existence may or may not make it easier for you to argue one way or another is irrelevant. That isn't what I'm interested in. I'm not here to prove the wider theory wrong (there's plenty of time for that!), nor am I here to advance it: I am here to point out this one central contradiction in the hope of receiving a response that would advance my, and others', understanding of what you are trying to argue. This could have been done in a single post if you had said, as I think it is clearly evident that you know, 'yes, I see the contradiction; that was a mistake on my part, the existence of Admin is not an absolute, objective, truth.' That's all it would take, but either out of a stubborn refusal to 'lose' a point to me or out of fear that there are consequences that you have missed, you have refused. The way that you have tried to brush the point aside by sort-of saying that I am right while always leaving at least one finger on your other options in case a U-turn becomes necessary would seem to indicate the latter, but honestly I have no idea why you have gone so far in trying to defend this ridiculous (and to you seemingly irrelevant) contradiction.

Thus the frustration you have developed while trying to hold onto both theory and assertion is understandable, but your trying to hold onto both in the first place isn't. If it's a fear of the 'adminism' claim then you should simply of prepared your theory to defend against that, rather than caving to it and destroying a part of your theory in the process.

So to sum up then. You said that A and B are true. I pointed out that they are in direct contradiction to each other (something that you seem to accept). If you don't want such things pointed out, then don't make such elementary mistakes in the first place.

Welcome to the world of political theory, enjoy your stay.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Vladimir

[Earogema]

Admin's existence is not obvious through our own existence (and does that now mean that our existence is an "absolute, objective, truth"? This would be another change to your theory), and the powers that you attribute to him are even less so. Perhaps we naturally evolved here, or appeared out of nowhere for no reason, or perhaps... etc. The possibilities -- natural and supernatural -- are infinite. While, for the rest of us, Admin's existence is indeed obvious, for you and Voxism any number of other possibilities should be just as "objectively true" as the obvious one.

You are therefore arguing in reverse. You know that X is true and that to claim otherwise opens you up to easy attack, and thus you were forced to try and justify the conclusion regardless of how flawed the logic behind it was. Ultimately it was a rejection, and indeed, a fear, of the logical conclusions your own theory.

Why is this important? Well, for a number of reasons. But the only one I am interested in here is that a great deal depends on how you answer the contradiction between theory and conclusion. As I noted earlier, if you continue to claim that Admin is an objective truth then you are throwing out the theory's founding premise, and this must be taken into consideration in any investigation of the theory -- or indeed, any practical outcomes that you hope to develop from it. Likewise, if you reject that Admin is an objective truth then, while it may or may not play an important part in the rest of your theory, it remains a sufficiently glaring error right at the centre of it. In this way it isn't necessarily the question itself that is important but your response to it and its potential ramifications.

So you have missed the point by a fairly wide margin. That his lack of existence may or may not make it easier for you to argue one way or another is irrelevant. That isn't what I'm interested in. I'm not here to prove the wider theory wrong (there's plenty of time for that!), nor am I here to advance it: I am here to point out this one central contradiction in the hope of receiving a response that would advance my, and others', understanding of what you are trying to argue. This could have been done in a single post if you had said, as I think it is clearly evident that you know, 'yes, I see the contradiction; that was a mistake on my part, the existence of Admin is not an absolute, objective, truth.' That's all it would take, but either out of a stubborn refusal to 'lose' a point to me or out of fear that there are consequences that you have missed, you have refused. The way that you have tried to brush the point aside by sort-of saying that I am right while always leaving at least one finger on your other options in case a U-turn becomes necessary would seem to indicate the latter, but honestly I have no idea why you have gone so far in trying to defend this ridiculous (and to you seemingly irrelevant) contradiction.

Thus the frustration you have developed while trying to hold onto both theory and assertion is understandable, but your trying to hold onto both in the first place isn't. If it's a fear of the 'adminism' claim then you should simply of prepared your theory to defend against that, rather than caving to it and destroying a part of your theory in the process.

So to sum up then. You said that A and B are true. I pointed out that they are in direct contradiction to each other (something that you seem to accept). If you don't want such things pointed out, then don't make such elementary mistakes in the first place.

Welcome to the world of political theory, enjoy your stay.

Very well. First, you will note no argument comes from Admin's existence in Voxism. Thus anymore implications to any other part of Voxism do not exist from this point. Second, even if I am incorrect on one point, it is of little inconvenience to me. Sure, I lose a bit of authority, but all philosophers are incorrect with the beginnings of the philosophy. This is no doubt why Francoism has so much work done on it, and even changes in between worlds. So go ahead, use that to say "He was wrong!" but the fact of the matter is you can't prove a single link to that argument and any other argument in Voxism.

In the above argument I dropped Admin. Yet, here you are, still arguing against me on him. There it is, right above us, in its own little paragraph. Admin is not an objective truth.

Now go. Use that to destroy Voxism. I already said for you to do as much, and you have yet to show me why a small joke like that ruins Voxism. In fact, all you do here is rant that I can't have it both ways. Oh, but I can, and I'll never understand why philosophers make this claim. I have you pinned. Whether or not I lose the argument, you lose the entire of what you were just arguing. However, I will fold, just to appease you. So, go ahead. Use the lack of Admin as an objective truth to deride Voxism. I concede to you on this argument and this argument alone.

Admin is also not the center of Voxism. You are terribly misguided. Just as secular existentialism doesn't only require the non-existence of God, and in fact, allows for his existence and absolutely nothing is changed. The same can be said here. Admin's existence was only posed as to verify that he in fact, does exist.

Edited February 13, 2009 by MegaAros

[West of Eden]

While I respect the opinion of my friends and I am glad they've taken their time to respond to this with full blown dissertations (coughMegaArosIloveYoucough), I personally am not that deeply into whatever the OP may think Voxism is.

There is a simple truth to why I am in Vox. We believe in justice and we do not like what NPO and their might makes right pals have done with the place. Now justice is a loaded word but I think any reasonable person can agree that NPO is not it and the vast majority of nations can also agree that we are tired of might makes right. And while NPO may attempt to cloud the issue with what they call "political theory," I would claim it is really all quite simple, almost everyone reading this can agree that either NPO should be severely weaked or put to an end.

Edited February 13, 2009 by West of Eden

[Vladimir]

Calm down, MegaAros. If you react like this to every innocent query about your text then I fear for your blood pressure; I haven't even begun a critique yet! I hate to think how you'd cope if you held to a theory so widely, so horrendously and so often misunderstood as Francoism (as you demonstrated once again in the above post).

In any case, I have already answered your concerns in what you quoted. Allow me to reiterate.

"I'm not here to prove the wider theory wrong (there's plenty of time for that!), nor am I here to advance it: I am here to point out this one central contradiction in the hope of receiving a response that would advance my, and others', understanding of what you are trying to argue."

I have no idea why you keep telling me to use the issue to "destroy Voxism," as I have made abundantly clear that this was never my query's intention; it is only your fear of my query that continues to make you think it is. If I was here to destroy Voxism I'd be taking a very different tact. I'm here to investigate something that you raised in your work and that I saw as flawed. Given that you have finally admitted this flaw without trying to hold onto it 'just in case' (as you did in all previous posts, though even now you leave a pinky on with your last sentence) it would seem that I was correct to pursue the matter. And the way you answered is important for the rest of your theory -- that the impact is minimised by your retraction of the assertion does not lessen this fact that a different answer would have had broader implications.

So I was not attacking you for being wrong on a matter (what kind of gentleman would I be!), I was attempting to clarify what you were actually saying so that your theory could be better understood. As I pointed out:

"if you continue to claim that Admin is an objective truth then you are throwing out the theory's founding premise, and this must be taken into consideration in any investigation of the theory -- or indeed, any practical outcomes that you hope to develop from it"

And since you raised the point, I would note that you did not "drop" Admin in your previous post. In fact you again stated that "Admin is objective" and then gave a reason for why this is so. What you said later was 'ok, so I tell you that Admin is not an objective truth, so what?' In the context of the previous reaffirmation that Admin is objective it was framed as a hypothetical in order to sniff out my hidden motive. Only there is no hidden motive. Political theorists are interested in the intricacies of political theory. Don't worry, you'll get used to it.

[West of Eden]

I have no idea why you keep telling me to use the issue to "destroy Voxism," as I have made abundantly clear that this was never my query's intention; it is only your fear of my query that continues to make you think it is. If I was here to destroy Voxism I'd be taking a very different tact. I'm here to investigate something..

Vladimir, why don't you just stop insulting the intelligence of all fine people reading this. Your goal isn't to "destroy Voxism" and you're merely "investigating"? Good grief, do you think anyone believes this ****? I realize you probably think you're the smartest person on planet Bob, but our IQs are above 20 - keep this fact in mind.

Edited February 13, 2009 by West of Eden

[Unko Kalaikz]

Vladimir, why don't you just stop insulting the intelligence of all fine people reading this. Your goal isn't to "destroy Voxism" and you're merely "investigating"? Good grief, do you think anyone believes this ****?

Well that's an overly dramatic way to put it.

More accurate is a scientist discussing why a flawed theory is not supported by evidence, or discussing mysticism and why it doesn't objectively stand. If a theory can be easily "destroyed" that means it is flawed and its hypothesis should be revised. Chances are that if MegaAros approaches it objectively like a scientist does he will come to the same conclusions I, and Vladimir, come to eventually.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Count da Silva

[West of Eden]

Well that's an overly dramatic way to put it.

No, really? And then you put it in an even more dramatic fashion

More accurate is a scientist discussing why a flawed theory is not supported by evidence, or discussing mysticism and why it doesn't objectively stand.

Vladimir, a scientist discussing objectively? (All your words.) As someone studying science, I almost feel offended. Vladimir, scientist and especially objectivity don't belong in the same sentence. If you and Vladimir stopped putting obviously disingenuous statements (Vladimir: 'I am not trying to destroy Vox') in your arguments, maybe people would take them more seriously.

Edited February 13, 2009 by West of Eden

[Earogema]

snip

I honestly don't know why it's impossible to do what I just did.

I was simply reaffirming the answer to the fact that objectively admin does exist, and then saying even if this doesn't hold true, it is no chip off my back, and even if conceded, is nothing but an argument to affirm his existence as a paradox that would interfere with Voxism. I'm merely allowing for both outcomes, and you have yet to really prove why that's impossible. You keep pointing out that I do it, but I see no warrant for why such a tactic is unusable.

Where I come from, it's okay to concede an argument for the sake of debate. I'm just not going to drop the argument though. I still hold that admin is the only objective fact, but here, if you must, I'm throwing you a bone.

[Earogema]

Well that's an overly dramatic way to put it.

More accurate is a scientist discussing why a flawed theory is not supported by evidence, or discussing mysticism and why it doesn't objectively stand. If a theory can be easily "destroyed" that means it is flawed and its hypothesis should be revised. Chances are that if MegaAros approaches it objectively like a scientist does he will come to the same conclusions I, and Vladimir, come to eventually.

So, objectively, does Admin exist?