A Critique on Voxism

[Unko Kalaikz]

So, objectively, does Admin exist?

By all measurable standards, there is enough evidence that supports the hypothesis "admin exists" to conclude it is fact. But I thought Voxism does not believe in objective standards but rather "existentialism" as you put it?

[Earogema]

EDIT: Nevermind.

Edited February 13, 2009 by MegaAros

[Vladimir]

[...]

Oh, well, certainly, at some point no doubt (though not in the near future) I'll write something on Voxism that one might deem an attempt to "destroy" it logically. Lord knows I've written about everything else around here. But that doesn't imply that everything I say is such an attempt. Indeed, if it were then MegaAros' recent agreement with my position would have led to an out burst of "Ah ha! But little did you know...!" followed by some damning revelation. But it didn't. Why not? Because I'm not an evil supervillain from Doom Mountain, and because I was only asking a question. One cannot understand a theory if there are such glaring and unexplored contradictions hanging over it. I explored it and we received an answer. Case closed.

Really I have no idea why you and MegaAros take such objection to my simple question. If you make a statement to a room then you surely must accept that the room will respond -- especially if it is a creative work. Perhaps this is part of an ideological opposition to science, where things are not meant to be studied or explored or questioned. I don't know. I don't particularly care -- it has nothing to do with my question!

If you and Vladimir stopped putting obviously disingenuous statements (Vladimir: 'I am not trying to destroy Vox')

My Ironyometer just exploded there, as you followed up such an attack with a blatant misquote. Classic West of Eden.

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.

I saw this after I wrote the first section of the post, and I am most disappointed. Really, after all the progress, after the "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", we are back to the beginning, to the "admin is the only objective fact"? Say it ain't so!

Edited February 13, 2009 by Vladimir

[Earogema]

By all measurable standards, there is enough evidence that supports the hypothesis "admin exists" to conclude it is fact. But I thought Voxism does not believe in objective standards but rather "existentialism" as you put it?

I was simply inquiring as to whether he did in fact exist by the methods you use.

Yes, the means I would have to use to prove him would be different.

[Earogema]

I saw this after I wrote the first section of the post, and I am most disappointed. Really, after all the progress, after the "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", we are back to the beginning, to the "admin is the only objective fact"? Say it ain't so!

I'm dropping him for the sake of argument.

In true Voxism, he still exists.

[Vladimir]

The goggles, they do nothing!

So you dropped it for the sake of argument because it makes no sense whatsoever, but it still exists in "true Voxism" because... you don't want to offend the 'Administs'?

[Earogema]

The goggles, they do nothing!

So you dropped it for the sake of argument because it makes no sense whatsoever, but it still exists in "true Voxism" because... you don't want to offend the 'Administs'?

I didn't drop it because it makes no sense. Admin is a paradox in Voxism, yes, so his lack of existence is fine, but I believe he does exist.

Voxism has it because I wrote it, and is my belief. Voxism is my philosophy, explained and written for whatever masses will accept it. I suspect that other Vox members have no reason to follow it.

I dropped it to see what you would do from that, but it seems you were sincere in saying you had no intent of using that against Voxism. I'm sorry I misjudged you.

Anyway, the only thing I can do from this is go find ways of proving Admin as objective.

EDIT: I don't mean mine alone: I meant rather that it was my belief that could be applied to others if they wish. Clarification.

Edited February 13, 2009 by MegaAros

[West of Eden]

Oh, well, certainly, at some point no doubt (though not in the near future) I'll write something on Voxism that one might deem an attempt to "destroy" it logically.

My Sarcasometer just exploded there, as you followed up such an attack with a blatant misquote. Classic West of Eden.

Oh good. I like how you quoted everything I said so that the reader could judge for himself....oh wait. Here is a quote from you

"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"

As I said, Vladimir: 'I don't want to destroy [or discredit] Vox' - ya right. Keep repeating it and pray someone will believe you but I just doubt it. Our IQs really are above 20, really - whatever you may think, I am not lying about that.

Really I have no idea why you and MegaAros take such objection to my simple question.

I don't even know what your objection is because I'll be honest, as soon as I saw that "I am totally neutral and my intent isn't to discredit or destroy Vox" statement, I just went back to ignoring everything you said. My advice here is that if you stopped using obviously disingenuous statements, maybe we could take your arguments more seriously.

[Vladimir]

What you quote and what you paraphrase are two completely different things. Let's work through this, together! Take my hand, West of Eden [hereafter referred to as 'Billy'], and off we go!

"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"

Ok, so what is Mr. Vladimir saying here? To understand the sentence we have to begin at the end, but don't worry, the beginning won't get lonely, we'll be there soon. "Never my query's intention." Well, Billy, this indicates to us that he is only discussing the content of the query. Other query's may have different intentions, but we can ignore those because we are only discussing the one in question. [billy: 'But what intention is that Mr. Vladimir?] Oh Billy, you rascal, we'll get to that in just a moment. "I have no idea why you keep telling me to use the issue to "destroy Voxism,"" You see, Billy? The earlier quoted section relates to this, the assertion that Mr. Vladimir wants to "destroy Voxism." Interesting, isn't it. Then let's take the two together and see what we get.

"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"

What do we see here, Billy? It was asserted that Mr. Vladimir was seeking, through his query, to "destroy Voxism," and Mr. Vladimir replied that this was not the "query's intention." So what he's saying is that the query had no ulterior motive to "destroy Vox" behind it. Understand, Billy? Good, so let's go and see what Mr. West of Eden said. Hold on tight! And off we go!

"Vladimir: 'I don't want to destroy [or discredit] Vox'"

Now, Billy, this is a shorter and easier sentence, so we can take it from the start and work our way through. "I don't want to destroy [or discredit]" Well, unfortunately we've hit our first problem. Do you see where it is? Mr. Vladimir made it clear above that he was referring only to the query he made, not his wider agenda -- whether that be to destroy Vox or not. So what Mr. West of Eden has done here is to widen the parameters of the statement from a single question to an entire way or life. This is a little problematic, but let's go on -- together. "Vox." Oh dear, another problem! In Mr. Vladimir's statement we were looking at Voxism, an ideology created by MegaAros bearing the name of an alliance (but not officially sanctioned by it). Mr. West of Eden's statement changes that into the alliance itself. Troublesome indeed, Billy. Now, take my hand again as we go to our final destination! Weeeeeeee!

So Billy, what were the two statements saying, at their very most simplistic core? Well, as we've seen, Mr. Vladimir said:

'My question did not seek to destroy the theory.'

See the important words there, question and theory? Well done. And we've also seen what Mr. West of Eden interpreted that as:

'I do not seek to destroy Vox.'

Oh dear. The question has been turned into a person and the theory has been turned into an alliance! This is very troubling indeed, Billy, they are two completely different statements. But now that we've seen the mistakes of others, you'll never make that mistake, will you!

Edited February 13, 2009 by Vladimir

[Delta1212]

Silly Vladimir, if your intention was really to destroy Vox, everything you do should be aimed at undermining anything related to Vox. Obviously you are lying.

[West of Eden]

Alright Vladimir. You've convinced me. Your "query" was not at all seeking to destroy or discredit Vox and you have no agenda at all.

Oh wait, no. Whether we're talking about the one post you made (which is what you want to do) or your overall agenda, everything I said remains the same. The only goal of any of your posts in this thread is as previously stated, to destroy or discredit Vox. You can keep denying it until your face turns blue but I think you take the CN public to be a bunch of idiots if you think you'll get anywhere with such a ridiculous claim.

[Gatherum]

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.

Oh, I believe that we are actually quite nice, given what we, and many others, could do but choose not to.

Putting that aside, however, on the agruement of Infrastructure having no meaning, I believe what Aros meant by that is that it has, or shouldn't have, meaning when it comes to rallying support for one's cause, be it defending a friend, or attempting to bring down a powerful hegemony, no matter how impossible it seems. This is because such mentalities are the real thing that make it impossible.

But then, I have to admit, I have not read Aros' work.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Gatherum

[Unko Kalaikz]

My critique is better.

[Vladimir]

I'm glad you recognise your mistake in misquoting me, and I forgive you. But I'm disappointed that you continue to try and slant away from the question itself and towards the ad hominem of 'Vladimir said it, therefore it is [...]'. I hold many interests and do many things; very few of them involve Vox (and most of them involve political theory). So, since my question wasn't an attack on MegaAros's theory (as MegaAros recognises), and MegaAros's theory isn't endorsed by Vox (and in fact has been consciously distanced every step of the way by both author and alliance), I'm not sure how my question on MegatAros's theory could be seen as an attack on Vox. The whole idea seems more than a little self-involved.

[West of Eden]

Silly Vladimir, if your intention was really to destroy Vox, everything you do should be aimed at undermining anything related to Vox. Obviously you are lying.

While you may be sarcastic, you've summed up my argument very nicely. This also addresses Vladimir's last post - any claim made by him with regards to Vox or any Vox related subject is attempt to discredit and destroy either Vox or Vox members, which is the same thing. I anyone truly believes Vladimir has no agenda and his posts are merely "inquiries".... well, hello.

[Corinan]

This also addresses Vladimir's last post - any claim made by him with regards to Vox or any Vox related subject is attempt to discredit and destroy either Vox or Vox members, which is the same thing.

Isn't that just the very ad hominem cop out that Vladimir spoke of?

Anyway, you're just trying to discredit Vladimir and in turn, Pacifica, since everyone knows that any claim made by you in regards to Pacifica or Pacifica related subjects is an attempt to discredit either Pacifica or NPO members.

These broad, sweeping generalizations sure make debating easy! "Well you're wrong because everything you say about me or my alliance is vile propaganda with no basis in fact because your only goal in life is to bring about our complete and utter destruction!!!!!"

[New Frontier]

Vlad saying things.

OOC: I can't say I didn't lol.

[West of Eden]

Anyway, you're just trying to discredit Vladimir and in turn, Pacifica, since everyone knows that any claim made by you in regards to Pacifica or Pacifica related subjects is an attempt to discredit either Pacifica or NPO members.

This is all true, or mostly. Certainly any post I make with regards to Vladimir is me trying to discredit him but that's only because he's already discredited himself. Difference is, I don't fill my arguments with 'I have no agenda and I am just a humble scientist investigating a truth' and the countless other mumbo jumbo lies he does.

[Earogema]

I'm glad you recognise your mistake in misquoting me, and I forgive you. But I'm disappointed that you continue to try and slant away from the question itself and towards the ad hominem of 'Vladimir said it, therefore it is [...]'. I hold many interests and do many things; very few of them involve Vox (and most of them involve political theory). So, since my question wasn't an attack on MegaAros's theory (as MegaAros recognises), and MegaAros's theory isn't endorsed by Vox (and in fact has been consciously distanced every step of the way by both author and alliance), I'm not sure how my question on MegatAros's theory could be seen as an attack on Vox. The whole idea seems more than a little self-involved.

Actually, I believe in Voxism entirely, but not all Vox nations have to.

I should probably change the name. Meh.

Edited February 14, 2009 by MegaAros

[Corinan]

Certainly any post I make with regards to Vladimir is me trying to discredit him but that's only because he's already discredited himself.

Out of curiosity, how has Vladimir discredited himself?

I've known Vladimir for over five years now, spanning the entire existance of this universe and others, and I can say with all honesty that I cannot recall an instance where he's lost a debate. Ever. Can someone name an instance where he lost a debate? I can't.

That being said it's hilarious watching Vox Populis response to any Vladimir post:

"lol Vladimir"

"lol OMG another wall o'text by Vladimir!"

"Mumbo jumbo!"

"Vile propaganda! Don't listen! DON'T LISTEN!"

All this is done in an attempt to discredit the man without actually having to challenge him in debate, because no one in Vox Populi is capable of doing so. And that's exactly what you're doing here. "Oh don't listen to him because it's Vladimir talking about something Vox Populi related so of course it's just propaganda!"

[Unko Kalaikz]

All this is done in an attempt to discredit the man without actually having to challenge him in debate, because no one in Vox Populi is capable of doing so. And that's exactly what you're doing here. "Oh don't listen to him because it's Vladimir talking about something Vox Populi related so of course it's just propaganda!"

To be fair, Vladimir has it easy because he only needs to defend the truth.

[Corinan]

To be fair, Vladimir has it easy because he only needs to defend the truth.

Well yeah it is Vladimir we're talking about. He only deals in truths.

[Earogema]

Out of curiosity, how has Vladimir discredited himself?

I've known Vladimir for over five years now, spanning the entire existance of this universe and others, and I can say with all honesty that I cannot recall an instance where he's lost a debate. Ever. Can someone name an instance where he lost a debate? I can't.

That being said it's hilarious watching Vox Populis response to any Vladimir post:

"lol Vladimir"

"lol OMG another wall o'text by Vladimir!"

"Mumbo jumbo!"

"Vile propaganda! Don't listen! DON'T LISTEN!"

All this is done in an attempt to discredit the man without actually having to challenge him in debate, because no one in Vox Populi is capable of doing so. And that's exactly what you're doing here. "Oh don't listen to him because it's Vladimir talking about something Vox Populi related so of course it's just propaganda!"

Wait, he's never lost a debate in the other realm either?

Now you're just lying. Posting anything there that isn't already accepted opinion is losing.

Anyway, I will respect Vlad's writing, but as it is now, Voxism and Francoism both still stand (neither have been throughly refuted by either party, although Vlad as found a slight hole within Voxism that needs patching). Can they both exist? Voxism thinks so, and I would suppose the same with Francoism (seeing as how you're allied to non-Francoists). Yet neither has really "won" per se. I have made my attacks on Francoism, but they have all been refuted by Vlad, and Vlad has only addressed one point in Voxism, which, thanks to his help, I hope to correct.

Edited February 14, 2009 by MegaAros

[HeinousOne]

Wait, he's never lost a debate in the other realm either?

Now you're just lying. Posting anything there that isn't already accepted opinion is losing.

Anyway, I will respect Vlad's writing, but as it is now, Voxism and Francoism both still stand (neither have been throughly refuted by either party, although Vlad as found a slight hole within Voxism that needs patching). Can they both exist? Voxism thinks so, and I would suppose the same with Francoism (seeing as how you're allied to non-Francoists). Yet neither has really "won" per se. I have made my attacks on Francoism, but they have all been refuted by Vlad, and Vlad has only addressed one point in Voxism, which, thanks to his help, I hope to correct.

Sounds like a wonderful relationship the two of you are building together.

[West of Eden]

Out of curiosity, how has Vladimir discredited himself?

I've known Vladimir for over five years now, spanning the entire existance of this universe and others, and I can say with all honesty that I cannot recall an instance where he's lost a debate. Ever. Can someone name an instance where he lost a debate? I can't.

Ah, there we go. Now both of you have also discredited yourself. You people seriously need to stop making statements that we all know to be false. Vladimir has never lost an argument? Perhaps you need to look at his essay threads more. Here is his last one. See how many stars it has? Practically the entire world, Vox or not, came out to argue that he is full of it in that thread. Dozens of alliances. If you look at his last several threads, they've all had a significant amount of people arguing against him (pretty much everyone except NPO) and none have had a rating higher than 3, most of them have been 2.

That being said it's hilarious watching Vox Populis response to any Vladimir post:

"lol Vladimir"

If you haven't noticed, that's not just Vox Populi's response, it's everyone's.