Jump to content

"Peace is a Lie" - Rebuttal


Hymenbreach
 Share

Recommended Posts

Peace Is a Lie - A rebuttal.

Before I start, a few notes.

This is a rebuttal of the argument and not an attack on the person of Ivan Moldavi, an individual whose history I respect and whose person I do not know. I also did not put this rebuttal in Mr Moldavi’s thread as I thought it too important to get lost there. Needless to say that, at this time, these are my personal views and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Legion.

Peace is a lie? I reject the negativity of that statement. It is a message of despair. It says to us that no matter how much we strive, push forward, try to be better, we will remain violent, amoral and ambitious for power.

Some will say that this is only realism and that is probably true. But one does not necessarily preclude t’other.

I know I have the flaws of idealism and optimism. It is what made me do something new and reject the destruction of my alliance because the leadership decided it should die. And that decision is proving fruitful.

These flaws make me know that we will one day become more than animals, more than human and break through the barrier of aggression and self interest and move forward to a future where war is a thing of the past and we grow through mutual creation and not destruction. That we make bricks and not build our houses from the bricks of some other guy’s house.

The Legion at the moment is a beacon of growth through peace and I wish we had become wiser sooner.

I am not advocating weakness. I will suffer no blind pacifism. I would defend myself if attacked, but I would not attack. You will say that since there are war-like people in the world, we must make ourselves more war like to beat them. They are, of course, not immune to the same thoughts! There is another way.

People copy methods of success, it is what we do. Do more alliances wish to emulate NPO than FAN? Show people a peaceful way of growth and they will take it. Sure, spats and arguments will continue but other ways of competing can be developed to express our anger.

Peace is a lie? Hope is a lie? A better future where our toil is not converted by our leaders into bile and bullets for their own ends?

No, I respectfully disagree.

Hymenbreach of the Legion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Peace is a lie? I reject the negativity of that statement. It is a message of despair. It says to us that no matter how much we strive, push forward, try to be better, we will remain violent, amoral and ambitious for power.

Look at history, it's how humanity is. Until the day that our brains evolve past the notion that it could be easier to club our neighbors into complying with our wishes than to convince him to do so peace will be just that: a lie.

We are an aggressive race. Sure thanks to our brains we understand that there are other ways but unfortunately for the passive, the peaceful, the "weak" as some would call them (not me), the aggressive and warlike reject them because they know there are easier and sometimes more effective ways. And while yes you may be willing to defend yourself, you likely will lack the strength, experience, ruthlessness, or any of a dozen other things that would grant you victory over your foe who will probably have gained most or all of them throughout his long career of clubbing.

I believe the saying goes "If you wish for peace, prepare for war."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple argument :

Peace is a lie in the eye of those who want war... Cause War allows wealth redistribution and can change inequalities... Peace instead allows those inequalities to prosper and to be transmitted through generations of CN nations and alliances...

Once you've said that, the basic assumption of war being based upon materialist motives, you can chit chat on loyalty, relative growth, treaties...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at history, it's how humanity is. Until the day that our brains evolve past the notion that it could be easier to club our neighbors into complying with our wishes than to convince him to do so peace will be just that: a lie.

We are an aggressive race. Sure thanks to our brains we understand that there are other ways but unfortunately for the passive, the peaceful, the "weak" as some would call them (not me), the aggressive and warlike reject them because they know there are easier and sometimes more effective ways. And while yes you may be willing to defend yourself, you likely will lack the strength, experience, ruthlessness, or any of a dozen other things that would grant you victory over your foe who will probably have gained most or all of them throughout his long career of clubbing.

I believe the saying goes "If you wish for peace, prepare for war."

There is a choice, to change the status quo and strive for the stars or to accept our brutal lot. I say, strive forward always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can try to change the world, but to truly strive for peace worldwide one would have to abandon one's warlike ways completely. Otherwise you look like your doing it at the point of your gun for this only causes more violence and hate (though it may delay some or all of it). At which point those who see this will promptly clobber your newly peaceful skull.

Peace means the status quo. Things don't change, they stay the same. The bottom is still the bottom, the top is still the top. Those with nothing keep nothing and those with everything hold onto it all. Conflict brings change. The mighty can be cast down and the lowly made great. Injustice can be destroyed or it can conquer all. And through conflict one can gain true peace. The mightiest has come and laid low any who could oppose him. As long as his strength endures where all can he, he may be able to rule in peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what you say was a successful way to achieve peace there would have only been one war. The way you describe is also a status quo of another sort. Constant war does not equal constant change on a wider timescale. It is the same bubbling cauldron, nothing is lost or gained - only positions change.

No. The difference is that Constant Peace, unlike Constant War, does not need equal stagnation and subjugation. At the moment we remain flawed human beings tied to our ape past of heirachies. I must either be below you or above you. No. I am on the same level as you and it is not beyond the wit of man to work out such a system. I must remain hopeful that we will grow to be more than human one day.

I cannot accept the hopelessness of continued war and the worst of us.

Edited by Hymenbreach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can try to change the world, but to truly strive for peace worldwide one would have to abandon one's warlike ways completely.

That my friend is impossible, conflict is an integral part of the human mind. Hymenbreach would consider ambition and other human emotions as flaws. The Sith consider such "flaws" as what gives us our strength, the strength to persevere, the strength to survive and finally, the strength to create a new path in new and unknown territory.

Peace means the status quo.

Exactly, and what is this status quo?, nothing more than what the leaders of the nations who "rule" the percieved peace have created by means of conflict. The so called peace was created by conflict and is kept afloat by the threat of conflict which by indirect means, causes every alliance too scared to stand against the threat to attach themselves to the existing web to gurantee their safety. Guess what though..?, by attaching themselves to the web they do not gurantee their safety but doom theirselves to be eternal slaves of the powers that be, to act as nothing more than cushions against the enemies that threaten them.

The status quo which equals peace in the minds of many was created by conflict, therefore peace is a lie.

Conflict brings change

Conflict breeds change, but at the same time, change breeds conflict as the powers that be will strive with all their effort to prevent this change from happening, and who would honestly blame them. They have become accustomed to the power that they now own. For them to willingly give it up would be a miracle. I do not believe in miracles.

And through conflict one can gain true peace.

Peace is a lie, there can be no true peace. There can only be true victory or loss, nothing more. The strong survive and the weak perish.

As long as his strength endures where all can he, he may be able to rule in peace.

So this "peace" created by a stronger power would be threatened by powers growing in the shadows the whole time I assume? That my friend isnt peace, its a lie....

If what you say was a successful way to achieve peace there would have only been one war. The way you describe is also a status quo of another sort. Constant war does not equal constant change on a wider timescale. It is the same bubbling cauldron, nothing is lost or gained - only positions change.

Eternal change is the one and only thing in all planes of existence which is a definite constant. Change is a natural cycle, you may try fight it but you are guranteed to lose eventually. Embrace that change is natural and you will have conquered the fear of the unknown.

I must either be below you or above you. No. I am on the same level as you and it is not beyond the wit of man to work out such a system

I will answer this with a quote from the founder of the rule of two..Darth Bane himself. I think his thoughts on the matter some it up perfectly.

Equality is a perversion of the natural order!…It binds the strong to the weak. They [the weak] become anchors that drag the exceptional down to mediocrity. Individuals destined and deserving of greatness have it denied them. They [the strong] suffer for the sake of keeping them even with their inferiors.”
Edited by Lycurgus Rex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equality is a perversion of the natural order!…It binds the strong to the weak. They [the weak] become anchors that drag the exceptional down to mediocrity. Individuals destined and deserving of greatness have it denied them. They [the strong] suffer for the sake of keeping them even with their inferiors.”

I turn that on it's head. The strong become balloons to lift the weak to new heights. The sky is big and will hold us all.

Edited for spelling

Edited by Hymenbreach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It says to us that no matter how much we strive, push forward, try to be better, we will remain violent, amoral and ambitious for power.

Yes.

The rest of your rebuttal seems to be nothing more than blind idealism that completely ignores human nature. You also speak of conflict and ambition for power as if it were a bad thing. This I simply do not understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One only needs to look into the history of your current alliance to see the facts of my position.

The Legion sought its place at the forefront of the Cyberverse by ignoring its treatied obligations to the New Pacific Order and launching an unexpected and surprise attack upon that alliance based on IRC logs that it knew contained explicit comment from the Emperor of the Order at that time expressly stating that no military action would take place towards them. It choose to truncate those logs to exclude his comments so that a poor motive for war could be established, thereby ignoring the long existing treaty between the two alliances. It did so because it also held treaties with several of the other alliances taking part in the war against the NPO. It choose to sacrifice honor for power.

This selfish act of power seeking led direclty to The Legion's downfall at the hands of those they betrayed.

The Legion would have been better served historically, in my opinion, which does matter since I was one of the primary instruments of the aforementioned vengeance, to have limited its treated partners so that it would not find itself in such a predicament.

The pursuit of power and strength is a normal course of events for any alliance. I simply believe it can be pursued most honorably by limiting treaty entanglements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One only needs to look into the history of your current alliance to see the facts of my position.

The Legion sought its place at the forefront of the Cyberverse by ignoring its treatied obligations to the New Pacific Order and launching an unexpected and surprise attack upon that alliance based on IRC logs that it knew contained explicit comment from the Emperor of the Order at that time expressly stating that no military action would take place towards them. It choose to truncate those logs to exclude his comments so that a poor motive for war could be established, thereby ignoring the long existing treaty between the two alliances. It did so because it also held treaties with several of the other alliances taking part in the war against the NPO. It choose to sacrifice honor for power.

This selfish act of power seeking led direclty to The Legion's downfall at the hands of those they betrayed.

The Legion would have been better served historically, in my opinion, which does matter since I was one of the primary instruments of the aforementioned vengeance, to have limited its treated partners so that it would not find itself in such a predicament.

The pursuit of power and strength is a normal course of events for any alliance. I simply believe it can be pursued most honorably by limiting treaty entanglements.

I can't blame Legion, promises by emperors of the NPO have proven to have little worth or meaning, whether public or private.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't blame Legion, promises by emperors of the NPO have proven to have little worth or meaning, whether public or private.

I'm confident that you're excluding Emperor Ivan Moldavi in this assessment, as I cannot recall a single instance that he did not hold true to his word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Change whether through peace or war starts when o people stands up and say "enough of thus bs something needs to be done, because otherwise things aren't going to by themselves".

even in peace this will happen becuse no matter what situation you can never make everybody happy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One only needs to look into the history of your current alliance to see the facts of my position.

The Legion sought its place at the forefront of the Cyberverse by ignoring its treatied obligations to the New Pacific Order and launching an unexpected and surprise attack upon that alliance based on IRC logs that it knew contained explicit comment from the Emperor of the Order at that time expressly stating that no military action would take place towards them. It choose to truncate those logs to exclude his comments so that a poor motive for war could be established, thereby ignoring the long existing treaty between the two alliances. It did so because it also held treaties with several of the other alliances taking part in the war against the NPO. It choose to sacrifice honor for power.

This selfish act of power seeking led direclty to The Legion's downfall at the hands of those they betrayed.

The Legion would have been better served historically, in my opinion, which does matter since I was one of the primary instruments of the aforementioned vengeance, to have limited its treated partners so that it would not find itself in such a predicament.

The pursuit of power and strength is a normal course of events for any alliance. I simply believe it can be pursued most honorably by limiting treaty entanglements.

Of course you are right in this example.

We may be having a disagreement of terms. I am talking peace vs war and you are talking change vs stagnation. There is a fair amount of overlap in this Venn diagram.

Conflict is not all war war, sometimes it is jaw jaw. I have nothing against conflict - only war. War is a blunt tool wielded by those whose brutish hands are unsuited to subtler tools. I have an essay somewhere praising dissent. Dissent is a form of conflict that enhances both sides (if dissenter and dissented against are wise enough to use this tool well).

Constant war improves nothing but war. It changes nothing but war leaders. True, it removes bad circumstance, but it also removes good circumstance Peace brings change that is sweeter and longer lasting, if a little slower.

Again, I say, it is a choice between the politics of despair 'Peace is a Lie' and the past and the choice of pushing forward and making the world better. A greyhound chasing its tail is constantly moving but will never win a race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confident that you're excluding Emperor Ivan Moldavi in this assessment, as I cannot recall a single instance that he did not hold true to his word.

I'm calling it as I see it, but nevertheless I apologise for derailing the thread and won't discuss this further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument assumes that violence is inherently amoral, or the expression of a human failing. I would disagree with that, and would consider the constant lies and deceit used to maintain peace to be much less virtuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument assumes that violence is inherently amoral, or the expression of a human failing. I would disagree with that, and would consider the constant lies and deceit used to maintain peace to be much less virtuous.

I would agree that Peace should not be maintained by deceit, but I cannot support violence and neither will you when you cannot defend yourself, I suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that Peace should not be maintained by deceit, but I cannot support violence and neither will you when you cannot defend yourself, I suspect.

I have no intention of falling into an undefensible position, In any case, you should note that Ivan expressly said that crushing alliances in defeat is a bad practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Ivan presented is not really an argument to begin with, but is more of a philosophical belief that is a small part of the New Sith Order's evolving creed. Also, Ivan pretty well addressed you already and making this a new topic is unecessary:

Those that give in to the lie should regulate themselves to the neutral alliances that espouse no warfare under any circumstances instead of taking part in meaningless libraries full of treaties and pacts that only remain valid so long as the lie is support abroad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...