Snake Solidus Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 The essay is merely a discussion of scientific principles and nothing more. It does not make anyone look "good" or "bad," it merely discusses the state of things and why open conflict with the Order is foolish. If this essay makes them "look worse" to someone, it is the people who don't matter. Of course, because if someone disagrees with you, their opinion is invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Of course, because if someone disagrees with you, their opinion is invalid. That depends upon the nature of their disagreement. If it is scientific in nature and is valid I will concede and revise my point of view, if subjective in nature it has no place in debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 That depends upon the nature of their disagreement. If it is scientific in nature and is valid I will concede and revise my point of view, if subjective in nature it has no place in debate. You're choice to only consider things that are "scientific in nature" is itself a subjective one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) You're choice to only consider things that are "scientific in nature" is itself a subjective one. Well, that should be obvious to anyone, I prefer to discuss things from a scientific standpoint. Edited February 19, 2009 by Count da Silva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Your entire premise is subjective, charlatan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Your entire premise is subjective, charlatan. Prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1276307 You have yet to reply. I do not feel the need to divulge myself entirely into this matter until a reasonable arguments comes from you. Edited February 19, 2009 by Ejayrazz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Not every nation is after power, that is your flaw. If I were ever destroyed because I fought for what I believe in, it doesn't make their alliance "correct", it just means they are stronger. Actually, it does. If you are "fighting for what you believe in," you are neglecting the interests of your nation and alliance in favor of satisfying your own pique. The fact that they are stronger means they made the correct decisions and actions during the conflict preceding the war itself. Obviously, it is ok to have an opinion and act on it... but the wise general will wait until circumstances are in his favor to act. So, if you wish to punish an enemy that is fine, but the good ruler should account for the interests of his people as well as conditions, and strive to change them to his purpose. The reason we have so many goofballs in Vox and elsewhere running around is that nations lack any means of removing their rulers if they are oppressive, incompetent or unfit for duty. This essentially gives the rulers a blank check to drag their nation into hell for foolish causes and vendettas. You are flawed merely because if someone falls, it doesn't mean they are inherently wrong. You do not need to be wrong to die. You are inherently wrong taking on the strongest force in the world for your own personal emotional satisfaction, and neglecting the interests of the nation you should be protecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Prove it. I find it a little hard for you to truly believe this considering your nation has no trades. One would naturally assume that you are therefore not looking out for your nation's best interest and are therefore an "abject failure" according to your own theory. You have failed in your duty as a leader. It therefore is a little hard for me to take your essay on "Embracing Civilization" seriously when you yourself appear to be acting in interests counter to those which you proclaim and by their very nature are contrary to your belief system. It's akin to being lectured about how Christianity is the best religion and all those against it are wrong - from someone who is an atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Actually, it does. If you are "fighting for what you believe in," you are neglecting the interests of your nation and alliance in favor of satisfying your own pique. The fact that they are stronger means they made the correct decisions and actions during the conflict preceding the war itself. Just because you choose to be amoral does not mean everyone acts in such ways. By this logic, one should not uphold treaties for their own self preservation. The reason we have so many goofballs in Vox and elsewhere running around is that nations lack any means of removing their rulers if they are oppressive, incompetent or unfit for duty. This essentially gives the rulers a blank check to drag their nation into hell for foolish causes and vendettas. You are inherently wrong taking on the strongest force in the world for your own personal emotional satisfaction, and neglecting the interests of the nation you should be protecting. Oh? So might makes right, and as long as you are successful at overpowering the existing "might" you too are right? But if you fail you are suddenly in the wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I find it a little hard for you to truly believe this considering your nation has no trades. One would naturally assume that you are therefore not looking out for your nation's best interest and are therefore an "abject failure" according to your own theory.You have failed in your duty as a leader. Fur and silver... it's been a struggle. It therefore is a little hard for me to take your essay on "Embracing Civilization" seriously when you yourself appear to be acting in interests counter to those which you proclaim and by their very nature are contrary to your belief system. No, I am not actively acting contrary to my people's interests, I'm just not advancing them as much as I could if I put in more time to governance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Fur and silver... it's been a struggle. Try harder? No, I am not actively acting contrary to my people's interests, I'm just not advancing them as much as I could if I put in more time to governance. Ah, but here's the crux of your problem - you know you could do more, but choose not to. By the very definition as to why Vox is in the wrong this makes you in the wrong. You have repeatedly said that Vox takes no effort to 'integrate' or 'embrace civilization,' but why perchance can they not use the same excuse as to why they too are not actively acting contrary to their peoples' interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Just because you choose to be amoral does not mean everyone acts in such ways. By this logic, one should not uphold treaties for their own self preservation. Or, one should not retain treaties with partners that are liabilities. Like I said, conflict happens long before there is ever a war. Oh? So might makes right, and as long as you are successful at overpowering the existing "might" you too are right? But if you fail you are suddenly in the wrong? If you fail you are in the wrong because you have failed the interests of your nation. Thus your goal is to avoid that, as a wise man once said: the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Ah, but here's the crux of your problem - you know you could do more, but choose not to. By the very definition as to why Vox is in the wrong this makes you in the wrong. You have repeatedly said that Vox takes no effort to 'integrate' or 'embrace civilization,' but why perchance can they not use the same excuse as to why they too are not actively acting contrary to their peoples' interests? They are actively acting contrary to their people's interests just by being in Vox and chances are they have permanently screwed their nations over and should resign in shame. That is hardly comparable to not finding good trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 They are actively acting contrary to their people's interests just by being in Vox and chances are they have permanently screwed their nations over and should resign in shame. That is hardly comparable to not finding good trades. So there is a certain level of "failure" which is acceptable? If I only do say 50% damage to my nation it's still an action which is considered "right" in accordance with your philosophy? Who determines this threshold, and how is it maintained? Or, one should not retain treaties with partners that are liabilities. Like I said, conflict happens long before there is ever a war. Ah, yes, the classic "drop and chop" maneuver of this political environment. If you fail you are in the wrong because you have failed the interests of your nation. Thus your goal is to avoid that, as a wise man once said: Who are you to determine the interests of my nation? Who is anyone but myself? Or for that matter, who am I to determine the interests of my 106,390 citizens? Everyone has different interests in their nation, you yourself have no interest in pursuing economic relations with other nations, Vox has no interest in pursuing military or economic strength, what's the difference? Other than the fact that you are arbitrarily determining which alliance interests are "valid" and which are "wrong" there is no fundamental difference. What if the interests of my people are to stand up for what they believe in, no matter what the cost? Many times over the course of history this has been the case and I do not believe that anyone ever says that GATO was wrong for not disbanding when the NPO attacked them again, or that MK should have just not honored their treaty, or that CSN (iirc) should have said "we started cancelling our treaty already cya GATO" or that NpO should not have just disbanded. Are you implying that each of these alliances was in the wrong for choosing their respective courses of action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Just because you choose to be amoral does not mean everyone acts in such ways. By this logic, one should not uphold treaties for their own self preservation. Oh? So might makes right, and as long as you are successful at overpowering the existing "might" you too are right? But if you fail you are suddenly in the wrong? He wins. This is exactly why I wished not to waste my time. Plus I am sick. Good luck with your endeavors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 You are inherently wrong taking on the strongest force in the world for your own personal emotional satisfaction, and neglecting the interests of the nation you should be protecting. As supreme dictator and ruler, my nation exists to serve my own interests, not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I took the time to read the OP and I can't help but feel that I have lost a significant amount of brain cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 As supreme dictator and ruler, my nation exists to serve my own interests, not the other way around. Typical dictatorial attitude. Your nation belongs to Holy Admin, and not you -- you are merely charged with the task of leadership, like a shepherd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Typical dictatorial attitude. Your nation belongs to Holy Admin, and not you -- you are merely charged with the task of leadership, like a shepherd. Because I can destroy them in seconds, my absolute rule over them is inherently right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Because I can destroy them in seconds, my absolute rule over them is inherently right. Your "absolute rule" can be revoked at any time by Holy Admin. Do not forget your place in the world and who is the true Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Your "absolute rule" can be revoked at any time by Holy Admin. Do not forget your place in the world and who is the true Lord. Admin can also revoke the rule of all Pacifican's nations and could even hand them over to Vox if he so desired. However aside from Admin's involvement, my nation is nothing but a tool for me to use for my own ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Admin can also revoke the rule of all Pacifican's nations and could even hand them over to Vox if he so desired. However aside from Admin's involvement, my nation is nothing but a tool for me to use for my own ends. Never fear, I have made a suggestion to Admin to rectify this false mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Solidus Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) Are you intentionally being foolish Count? Your arguement is insane, as I will explain. Your counterpoint to Azaghul, who claims your point is false because it is not his job is protect his precious pixels and they are merely a tool for his ends, is that they are not his, they are admins. In addition to appeal to a higher power as justification for your actions your also claiming that to follow your way is to be right. Ergo not following it is wrong. Congratulations, you've turned kissing NPO's $@! into a religion. For those of you who didn't follow my logic here it is again. He claims that admin is all powerful and refers to him as holy. This sets him up a god. According to him your nations are not your own, but this gods. And the task your 'god' admin has charged you with is to grow your pixels. He then asserts the only way to follow gods will, which once more is to grow your pixels, is to obey the will of the NPO. For it is his belief that only by aligning yourself with the NPO is to be right, beneficial for your nation, and to be against them is wrong or detrimental to your nation. Edited February 19, 2009 by Snake Solidus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 1. God a. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts