Lycurgus Rex Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 the individuals who hold confused and conflicting thoughts about politics but are open to the truth. define truth though....or do you mean your version of the truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 define truth though....or do you mean your version of the truth? I will not claim I am always right, but I always strive for my "version" of the truth to be as close to objective reality as is possible. If someone points me out to be incorrect, I will gladly adjust my expression of the truth to make it correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycurgus Rex Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 (edited) I wasnt referring specifically to yourself and your version of the truth but more so that every person has their own version of the truth that they believe is the right version and is "more right" than their neighbours version. So who is to say what is right or wrong? That then brings into argument the morality of any given situation as each person has their own opinions on any given matter. Its why realpolitik works so well in CN politics, for the simple fact that there is no right or wrong. Only what is attainable and what is unattainable. Edited February 22, 2009 by Lycurgus Rex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 I attempt to explain how the world works to make people realize it's acceptable to focus on your nation's self interests; to appeal to logic and thus convert people to my point of view gradually -- the individuals who hold confused and conflicting thoughts about politics but are open to the truth. Translation: you do nothing. You're the critic that tells the painter what his art means. The armchair general that names his son Napoleon. You watch forlornly from your window as the others kids play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 I wasnt referring specifically to yourself and your version of the truth but more so that every person has their own version of the truth that they believe is the right version and is "more right" than their neighbours version. So who is to say what is right or wrong? That then brings into argument the morality of any given situation as each person has their own opinions on any given matter.Its why realpolitik works so well in CN politics, for the simple fact that there is no right or wrong. Only what is attainable and what is unattainable. I disagree. Morality is a transcendent principle. Realpolitik works so well in CN politics because the consequences of making a morally wrong decision aren't that great, and are more often than not beneficial. Alliances forget wrongs too easily in exchange for the easy way into the good ole boys club, and are much more interested in their own success rather than doing the right thing. Too bad being honorable is the exception rather than the rule. That's why alliances like Gremlins and STA are so highly revered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anenu Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 If they want to they can i don't see a problem with anyone controlling an entire sphere, its not like theirs no were else to go. That said i don't see a reason for it as any alliance that can control a sphere entirely can hold at least 2 senate seats no matter how contested and more alliances mean more trading partners so i would think it would be more reasonable to simple proclaim control over the senate than drive everyone out of the sphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Solidus Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 I will not claim I am always right, but I always strive for my "version" of the truth to be as close to objective reality as is possible. If someone points me out to be incorrect, I will gladly adjust my expression of the truth to make it correct. I always love when you post, because you always hurt your cause. You could make 2 + 2 = 5 simply by saying it equaled 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Translation: you do nothing. You're the critic that tells the painter what his art means. The armchair general that names his son Napoleon. You watch forlornly from your window as the others kids play. I do not speak to the painter, I speak to those who do not know what a painting is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 I do not speak to the painter, I speak to those who do not know what a painting is. Yeah, this has gotten a bit too vague. Maybe a nudge back on topic would help. My take on the whole thing is that the policy of protecting unaligned nations in a color is a very good idea. The NPO should be commended for it. They should help spread that idea to the rest of the colors, bring civilization to the outer planets as it were. Of course they won't do it because there is little to gain in spreading enlightenment and much opposition to be had. Now banning all alliances except your own from a color is a bad idea. It says to me that the NPO doesn't feel it isn't capable, for whatever reason, of cooperating with an alliance that is on the same sphere as itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 I do not speak to the painter, I speak to those who do not know what a painting is. Unsurprisingly, you've completely missed the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Unsurprisingly, you've completely missed the point. Or the point has missed me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Thought I was aiming low enough for a scholar of such self-styled repute. I'll keep it in mind for next time. Thanks Count da Silva. Always a pleasure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mongol-Swedes Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Orange and Pink are doing just fine without being encompassed by a single alliance each. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Specific Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 (edited) Guess I am not the first to say this, but the title of this thread versus its content is a bit confusing. As an unaligned nation on red, I see the Revenge Doctrine as strongly reinforcing the international legitimacy of the Moldavi Doctrine. Sure, in an ideal world it'd be nice to see other alliances on red for more trading partners. However, I would not want to see other alliances who presently are openly hostile to the ideals of the Revenge Doctrine in other trade spheres come over here and threaten my right as an unaligned nation to exist. Just looking after the security interests of my nation here: the Revenge Doctrine and Moldavi Doctrines working together are the best things since sliced bread for an unaffiliated nation like mine. Edited February 25, 2009 by General Specific Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Moldavi or Revenge doctrine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Specific Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 (edited) If your question is to me, I took the OP's question to be if the Moldavi Doctrine had international legitimacy (the thread title refers to the Revenge Doctrine). My argument was that the doctrines working together have international legitimacy since these two doctrines allow all nations to exist on the red sphere, just not nations in alliances that might be hostile to the NPO or to unaligned nations. Edited February 25, 2009 by General Specific 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.