Chickenzilla Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 You seem to have no understanding for Vox and it's ideologies by your own admission so I wonder why you bother annoying anyone with your pointless commentary? Have you noticed that just about every member of Vox has its own ideology? I can only wonder why you bother to post to point out my pointless commentary with more pointless commentary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Nice to see some members of Vox not blasting everyone who would critique their ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 You seem to have no understanding for Vox and it's ideologies by your own admission so I wonder why you bother annoying anyone with your pointless commentary? What are you talking about? Chickenzilla is a founder of Vox, as am I. He knows what Vox means without a philosophical paper to explain it to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) He has revealed himself to us, yes, because we can see him and his (perfectly logical) effects, much like we can see many other things. Or are you suggesting that we only know he is there because you can 'feel' his presence? 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. Edited February 11, 2009 by MegaAros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Soviet Attack Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Guess what? All CN ideologies are pointless and devoid of any real meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Guess what? All CN ideologies are pointless and devoid of any real meaning. They are certainly good ways to start an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Soviet Attack Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Fair point. Personally I prefer arguments on things that mean something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Fair point.Personally I prefer arguments on things that mean something. If folks enjoy it, then it means something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Soviet Attack Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 You got me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 The first and most severe fallacy of the OP is assuming Vox has an ideology, unless you count borderline mindless hate as an ideology and a will to stoop to any low in order to make claims that another group is low as one. Well the first half is correct. Vox Populi is not as simple-minded and authoritarian as to make adherence to any one ideology, or any ideology at all, requisite of membership or official policy. Just because our members create an "ideology" does not mean we, or anyone follows it. You know, like Francoism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Just because our members create an "ideology" does not mean we, or anyone follows it. You know, like Francoism. I'm Doppelganger and I'm a Francoist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Guess what? All CN ideologies are pointless and devoid of any real meaning. Oh noes, you got me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Well the first half is correct. Vox Populi is not as simple-minded and authoritarian as to make adherence to any one ideology, or any ideology at all, requisite of membership or official policy. Just because our members create an "ideology" does not mean we, or anyone follows it. You know, like Francoism. After reading my above statement, and this one, think I should clarify. Doitzel is right. Voxism is only the name because it came from Vox. Not all Vox nations must follow it, nor must you be in Vox to be a Voxist. It's just something I thought is most applicable to the Vox member, but I could never control Doitzel. Nobody could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyZeus Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Admin's powers are directly proportionate to our existence and while he has power over this plane. We have ways of communication beyond Admin's control, wars have been started because of people not even existent on this world. So in fact who is more powerful if we give Admin existence and have ways of shaping the world outside of his sphere of power. Isn't Admin really the one we control? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Admin's powers are directly proportionate to our existence and while he has power over this plane. We have ways of communication beyond Admin's control, wars have been started because of people not even existent on this world. So in fact who is more powerful if we give Admin existence and have ways of shaping the world outside of his sphere of power. Isn't Admin really the one we control? You just blew my mind. Admin can shape the world as he sees fit, he just loves his children enough to allow them to do what they will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrous Posted February 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 You just blew my mind.Admin can shape the world as he sees fit, he just loves his children enough to allow them to do what they will. LOL, be careful or else you might start the first bonafide religion in the Cyberverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 It is kind of sad to see the only major in-game ideologies espouse personal gain at the expense of all others and meaningless destruction. What ideology does the former? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 There is no need for long discussions of ideologies. The battle between Francoism and Voxism is simple. It is order against chaos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) Easy.Most nations that build up allow for war. Most nations do not select peace mode, although there would be absolutely no threat under peace mode. OOC: If a nation in the real world had peace mode, I'm sure they would use it all the time, because their citizens actually matter. Actually, most nations choose war mode because there are severe economic penalties attached to peace mode along with handicapped aid options. Peace mode is not the best way for your nation to achieve its potential. The vast majority of nations out there are peaceful and only go to war when ordered to, (if part of an alliance), or when attacked. The best way for a nation to grow is to not enter peace mode but instead join the proper alliances and provide mutual defense and protection. It's as simple as that, the world does not revolve around mindless conflict but rather defense and advancement of national interests. As the individual above me noted, it is apparently now a conflict between nihilists who seek death and chaos, and those who favor order and civilization. Edited February 12, 2009 by Count da Silva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 There is no need for long discussions of ideologies. The battle between Francoism and Voxism is simple. It is order against chaos. THANK YOU That's all I wanted to do. Create an opposite pole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Actually, most nations choose war mode because there are severe economic penalties attached to peace mode along with handicapped aid options. Peace mode is not the best way for your nation to achieve its potential. The vast majority of nations out there are peaceful and only go to war when ordered to, (if part of an alliance), or when attacked.The best way for a nation to grow is to not enter peace mode but instead join the proper alliances and provide mutual defense and protection. It's as simple as that, the world does not revolve around mindless conflict but rather defense and advancement of national interests. As the individual above me noted, it is apparently now a conflict between nihilists who seek death and chaos, and those who favor order and civilization. This also means that a nation must risk destruction to achieve maximum growth. Now you see how growth is tied directly to destruction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 War is not a conflict over infrastructure first off. CB's never include "Hey, I want to destroy your infrastructure." War's conflicts based upon hatred, trade, legitimate arguments, or even duels, but never over infrastructure. This is correct, but it's simpler to say war is one means of conflict resolution between conflicting self interests. As for arbitrarily assigning value to conflict, first, it is simply the main mechanism that Voxism prescribes to make meaning. There are subjective ways of creating meaning that do not involve conflict, yet those philosophies will inevitably conflict with war hungry nations. This is where the meaning is giving. Because your own will is challenged, you now have something against to will yourself into existence. That is hardly arbitrary. There are two ways individual interests can interact; when one or both parties view interests as conflicting there is conflict. The other way they can interact is mutual cooperation, i.e. both parties share common or aligned interests. What makes conflict have "meaning" but not cooperation? Aren't they at the very least just two sides to the same coin? Why does Voxism focus so much on the violent side of conflict (war) and not at all upon more peaceful forms of conflict, or even cooperation? There is value in infrastructure. It is used to make more war, cause more conflict, develop the nation further so that it may cause more conflict. The citizens have no purpose or life anyway, seeing as how they simply stop existing if I sell infrastructure, and all they do is pay taxes. What about enabling further cooperation and peaceful advancement between nations? My goal, for example, could involve growing my nation not for purposes of militant conflict but rather benevolence to other nations, or acting in the interests of my people. I may not understand, but it seems Vox tries to take one sliver of the whole truth (war) and try to expand it to be an all-explaining ideology. Even though conflict, and war which is a form of conflict, is just a clash of self interests. Self interests should be the center of your study, not one of its products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) This also means that a nation must risk destruction to achieve maximum growth. Now you see how growth is tied directly to destruction. Nonsense, growth is tied inversely to destruction, the more destruction a nation suffers the less it will grow. The wise leader with the interests of his nation at heart will only engage in military conflict when the alternative means worse destruction, either now or in the future. Or on rare occaison it promotes faster growth (raiding, from .mil aid, etc). In other words the wise king fights to prevent needless bloodshed in the future. The wise king does not engage in needless violence. Which is why NPO and other alliances "crush" Vox and other potential threats, this is to avert potential future destruction. It is also why materialism will ultimately triumph over nihilism or existentialism or moralism or any other "ideologies." Edited February 12, 2009 by Count da Silva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) There are two ways individual interests can interact; when one or both parties view interests as conflicting there is conflict. The other way they can interact is mutual cooperation, i.e. both parties share common or aligned interests. What makes conflict have "meaning" but not cooperation? Aren't they at the very least just two sides to the same coin?Why does Voxism focus so much on the violent side of conflict (war) and not at all upon more peaceful forms of conflict, or even cooperation? 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. What about enabling further cooperation and peaceful advancement between nations? My goal, for example, could involve growing my nation not for purposes of militant conflict but rather benevolence to other nations, or acting in the interests of my people. I may not understand, but it seems Vox tries to take one sliver of the whole truth (war) and try to expand it to be an all-explaining ideology. Even though conflict, and war which is a form of conflict, is just a clash of self interests. Self interests should be the center of your study, not one of its products. 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: Edited February 12, 2009 by MegaAros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Nonsense, growth is tied inversely to destruction, the more destruction a nation suffers the less it will grow. The wise leader with the interests of his nation at heart will only engage in military conflict when the alternative means worse destruction, either now or in the future. Or on rare occaison it promotes faster growth (raiding, from .mil aid, etc).In other words the wise king fights to prevent needless bloodshed in the future. The wise king does not engage in needless violence. Which is why NPO and other alliances "crush" Vox and other potential threats, this is to avert potential future destruction. It is also why materialism will ultimately triumph over nihilism or existentialism or moralism or any other "ideologies." All violence is needless when your entire thesis on the world is based upon stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.