Snake Solidus Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 1. Goda. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. Considering the fact that the Lord created this world and entrusts His leaders from the Outside to lead His people I don't see this as an entirely wrong definition. Of course, there will always be men who abuse His people and His nations for their own wickedness and pique, but they are always held accountable and their impact is minimized by their own impotence and blasphemy. The righteous ruler will always remember his humble place under Admin's wing and seek to deliver His people into peace and prosperity I never said you were wrong, I mere followed your logic. Admin is god, and to serve him you must follow NPO. That is this thread and your oh so brilliant text wall in a nutshell. So, like I said, you've turned kissing NPO $@! into a religion. Your argument is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I never said you were wrong......Your argument is absurd. Well, guess I'm gonna have to make another thread incorporating Admin in it to explain to the wicked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Solidus Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Well, guess I'm gonna have to make another thread incorporating Admin in it to explain to the wicked. Yeah taking things out of context is fun. I never said your claim of admin being god was wrong. I merely introduced this new aspect into your theory which you already detailed to point out how absurd your logic is. This is a game. The goal is not to grow your nation. Therefore hurting or helping your nation is neither wrong nor right. It is merely a game. But because you believe in admin, I'll quote his words to you, therefore forcing you into accepting me truth for you infallible God has said it. Cyber Nations is not a game that can be completed in one sitting and there is really no way to 'beat' the game. There are many different ways you can build your nation; treat your people kindly through representation of a benevolent government or rule them with an iron fist as a malevolent dictator. Become a war monger and participate in destroying other nations or grow peacefully as a diplomat among the other nations of the world. Grow your nation in size and strength to become all powerful or run your nation into the ground through mismanagement. It’s all up to you. http://www.cybernations.net/about.asp Well, admin has stated that you can do whatever the hell you want with your nation. And because you have defined him as a God here: 1. Goda. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. Being omniscient (that means all knowing, I decided to tell you so you don't have to consult another online dictionary) his words must be true. Therefore there is no right or wrong way to play the game. Therefore going against the NPO is not wrong because the goal in this game is not to grow your pixels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyler kaiser Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 such big words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Solidus Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 such big words Don't read the OP. It will set your understanding of the English language back 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Valentine Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Well, this is a great post to come back to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Well, this is a great post to come back to. Your signature is very misleading, but I think that was your intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Solidus Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Well, this is a great post to come back to. Mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Valentine Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) Your signature is very misleading, but I think that was your intention. As far as I am aware, I'm Lord Commander of NeKront, A comrade of Vox Populi and a founding member of the New Pacific Order. I don't see what's misleading about that. In any case, I've edited it lest you get your panties in a bunch, Dopp. Edited February 20, 2009 by Lord Valentine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicea Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I am going to skip reading the thread here and reply to the OP. Taking such an fanatical stance is wrong, there are no absolute truths and no absolute wrongs. Concepts such as good and evil are too absolute to be considered sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I have read almost only the OP and I will address it only. (I'm sorry if the lack of time to read the whole thread makes me miss something.) Count da Silva, while I appreciate your effort to write a meaningful essay on the subject, I highly doubt that you are right. Your considerations can be resumed[1] with the following concepts: Improving the material conditions is the only/main goal one has (or should have). (A) Going against the superpowers will harm the material conditions of one's Nation. (B) Going against the superpowers is therefore wrong. (C) However, A is entirely subjective, and your attempt to derive "objective" conclusions from it is thus inherently arbitrary. Your method is that flawed that it isn't even needed to consider your content to say that you could be right only by chance. B is trivial in the short period and absolutely disproved by facts in the long period. If you were right the NPO, that some time in the past wasn't the global dominator, would have never become the leading Alliance of this world. (In fact, no change or shift of power would have ever been possible under your premises.) The necessary consequences of your theory are incompatible with the reality you are describing and in this case there's no possibility that you are right. About your "scientific" method: you introduced an axiom with A and an obvious falsity/borderline paradox with B; you then presented consequences (C) which correctness is impossible to derive from your premises. It's therefore evident that C is an article of faith, and as such out of the realm of scientific analysis. [1] Reference (I cut out all the rhetoric that hadn't a real meaning): I will not burden you, the reader, with an analysis of material conditions (Vladimir has covered this extensively) and will instead skip to the steak of the plate. By objective measures, science has determined some basic principles of the state of nature and the world we inhabit. Perhaps the most important premise is that conflict is generally undesirable and inhibits the realization of potential of a given nation or alliance, and that reducing undesired conflict allows the ruler to advance the interests of his nation (as determined scientifically in a materialist sense).By this, we can say that it is in the interests of the nation to grow (infrastructure, technology, and wonders, for example). These are all actually means of power (the ability to influence others) as well as security. The two are related, because with power (whether militarily, politically, charismatically, or otherwise) you can secure the advancement of your nation, or reach your nations potential. So, a nations potential is met not only by increasing his countries level of power at the national level, but also his own influence abroad (further advancing his nation and the nations of his allies). Although perhaps initially this seems cold, the reality is that with most nations following this natural tendency to advance their interests, the tendency of cooperation becomes more and more visible -- which is why we see longer and more prosperous stretches of peace (aka the Pax Pacifica). From a humanistic sense this growth of civilization can be seen as highly beneficial to the citizens of the various nations involved in this mutual effort at cooperation. In terms of natural selection on the international level, we see clear stratification with the passage of time as the most qualified, stable and intelligent nation rulers float at the top of the developing global civilization(s), while you see the most abject failures at the bottom of the muck (vox populi, U-FAIL, flying tigers, etc). Thus, the people who control alliances like NPO are at the very top of their game (and their success of course earns them legions of haters, largely failures sitting at the bottom of societal stratification). Conflict continues to, and always will exist, but the conflicts become smaller and smaller in nature, and those who have proven themselves as worthy of being at the top of civilization (via the trials of time and proven competency) will always continue to prevail. This is inevitable and no matter the efforts of the failures, will always be the case. Which leads back to the original point made: To openly conflict with the Order, or to oppose Civilization as a whole, is to be in the wrong. It means you have not correctly chosen the right steps to advance your nation, which is your duty as leader. It means you have set yourself up for failure, because no matter your intelligence you will never be competent enough to defeat the combined minds and strength and decency of civilization. By merely taking that action, you have failed and done wrong. To remember that your goal and your duty is to advance your, and your nations and alliances self interests, and you can never do that while in conflict with civilization itself. The Order will likely be the pinnacle of civilization for months and years to come. Even if they fall, all that will occur is a continuation of the march of civilization, and another great alliance or group of alliances will replace them, of exactly the same nature. Peace and prosperity will be inevitable whatever the hiccups we face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der_ko Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 To be Count da Silva is to be inherently wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIdiot the Great Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 To be an unthinking sycophant is to be inherently idiotic. Count, I'll forgo the rest of the wall of text explaining the above as I believe it counters your initial thesis quite succinctly. Regards, EmperorVIcious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) If you were right the NPO, that some time in the past wasn't the global dominator, would have never become the leading Alliance of this world. (In fact, no change or shift of power would have ever been possible under your premises.) An alliance can gain strength while not at war or in conflict with the current leading alliance, so it would be possible for an alliance to become the the new leading alliance if the previous leading alliance allowed another to surpass them in power without fighting. Edited February 20, 2009 by Methrage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Count is now more hated than Vox. I love it, now he has the stat collectors on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windsor Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 <Ahem> Now it's our turn. Listing your nation as a top priority is a choice - not a requirement. When it comes to war time, this is heavily preached as major alliance members debate sitting the war out, because they are more concerned about their nations than they are their alliance. Therefore, alliance propaganda will always address the notion of putting your nation last, and your alliance first. Your logic is absolutely skewed. To suggest that it's everyone's *duty* to avoid being enemies with the NPO, and that only those with a logical mind can understand this, is in itself, illogical. Some that are enemies of the NPO are enemies because NPO declared them enemies, (such as the stomping of GPA)- not always vise versa as you have suggested. It is also this severely warped mentality that creates enemies, as the community typically does not enjoy serving the illogical. It was your hope to rehabilitate indoctrinate the masses into a spiral of hopelessness in restoring logic to the cyberverse. This is "inherently wrong". And in conclusion, as true logic would address, if your logic was precise, then there would be no need to make such an address in the first place. Therefore, because you felt the need to "remind" the community of the might that is Pacifica, what you have actually done, was let us know that you and others felt that such a reminder was needed, because somewhere, somebody is seeing the strengthening of what you have deemed as "inherently wrong". You have failed, but we thank you for your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Heh, when you have Blackstone, Vox and various mainstream alliances on your back, you know you're doing it wrong. Jerdge: thanks for laying out the point I couldn't be bothered to say properly B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Do you think this is Count da Silva's way of admitting he's secretly an enemy of the Order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIdiot the Great Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Do you think this is Count da Silva's way of admitting he's secretly an enemy of the Order? It's not particularly secret. I remember another ruler *cough* Scholar *cough* who employed a very similar technique which he stole from [OOC] *cough* Machiavelli *cough*[OOC]. This is not a particularly new approach, nor is it very well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ofkind Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) The phrase: inherently wrong is stupid enough alone, and writing an essay on something that is said to be is just unworthy. Edited March 3, 2009 by 1ofkind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Soviet Attack Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Do you think this is Count da Silva's way of admitting he's secretly an enemy of the Order? I'm convinced he's in cahoots with Vox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I'm convinced he's in cahoots with Vox. As funny as that would be, we're trying not to go slumming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I'm convinced he's in cahoots with Vox. I'd believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 gravedig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts