"Peace is a Lie" - Rebuttal

[Heft]

The spirit (of despair) of the essay and the statement of the last paragraph.

Then perhaps it is a difference of interpretation as to what "growth" entails? Peace certainly allows nations to grow stronger and collect more technology, infrastructure, and the like, which in turn facilitates alliances becoming stronger, at least in a statistical sense. But I do not think that is what Ivan was referring to.

[Voodoo Nova]

"Peace is a lie, there is only passion"

Of the phrase, I believe the above bold part is the other half of the phrase you have seemingly forgotten. Peace is a lie, because it cannot encourage growth, prosperity or friendship.

Passion is the root of all activity. A passion for your alliance, the politics, your friends is what drives your activity as a person because you care for their growth, their prosperity and you enjoy the friendship that comes from it. Peace does not allow for passion to be exerted, it only helps to deteriorate it.

Peace creates stagnation, lessens prosperity and destroys friendship. Passion elevates it. Your passion for your alliance has helped you grow, has helped your alliance grow and has helped your friendships grow. Their passion has done the same for their alliances and their friendships. When you are in a peaceful state, you are in a torpor-like state, the opposite of being in a passionate state. You become lazy and inactive because of a lack of belief or strong desire to do anything. You lack the passion.

Peace is a lie, as there is only passion. This passion drives you to do what you have a strong desire to do, whether it be to grow your alliance or further a friendship. Peace creates a stagnate, torpor type state within you, making you lack the desire to do much of anything. Passion is the only thing that can drive you to do what needs to be done.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Voodoo Nova

[Ivan Moldavi]

I believe the second half of the initial phrase is to be the focal point of my next commentary...

[Tom Litler]

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.

If this was meant purely as a rebuttal and not an attempt to discredit the Dark Lord personally, wouldn't you have posted this in the other thread just as everyone else has? Are you above that?

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.

You reject the negativity? Okay. The truth isn't always pleasant, however. I don't know what you wanted to accomplish in this statement.

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

I'd like some clarification on this statement. Perhaps I am simply not smart or determined enough to make sense of this statement, or perhaps it contains none.

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.

Hardly. The Legion is nowhere near where it once was. You do not have the respect and admiration of the defiant masses that GATO has earned through their martyrdom time and time again; yet your masters are hardly very fond of you. The Legion is less than a shadow of its former self and does itself no justice. Better to have laid it to rest while you still had your dignity, wouldn't you say? I believe some communists once said something about avoiding a life on your knees.

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.

We are animals, whether you like it or not. It is in our nature to compete. Why should we want to hold back so that the others have a turn at the water source? It is simply illogical and whether you like it or not, animals we must stay if only because the organic consistency of our brittle carbon-based bodies cannot be changed.

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

Has the Legion even reached it's pre-war strength from years ago? Hardly a "beacon of growth". The reasons you're growing through peace are two: you're not under attack and you've got no one of a significant strength that you can crush from the act of which you would actually benefit.

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.

Which way is that? If you want peace, prepare for war.

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.

The NPO's way of growing is hardly "peaceful". No offense to them.

It's all about the tactics you use.

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?

Rrrrriiiiiiiight.

No, I respectfully disagree.

Good on you for expressing yourself, kiddo.

[Jipps]

Peace is an allusion of time used to prepare for the next war.

It's false and in a very real sense, doesn't exist.

[Lycurgus Rex]

I believe the second half of the initial phrase is to be the focal point of my next commentary...

Yeah..., Good way to ruin the surprise Voodoo Nova...

[Voodoo Nova]

Yeah..., Good way to ruin the surprise Voodoo Nova...

People don't tell me anything

[Heyman]

Yeah..., Good way to ruin the surprise Voodoo Nova...

I'm sure Ivan will be able to elaborate more than Nova did. After all, Moldavi DID help create this [iC] philosophy.

[anenu]

True peace as in a world were no man or woman would commit violence or even conceive of violence is impossible as a single angry person would ruin it all.

[shahman]

hmm, good job, Mr. rhetorician.

Now, how about some evidence, other than your own personal opinion?

Moldavi used the treaty web as a evidence, and while you claim that

"more alliances wish to emulate NPO than FAN"

you need to back it up.

[Gabe Logan]

"Peace is a lie, there is only passion"

Of the phrase, I believe the above bold part is the other half of the phrase you have seemingly forgotten. Peace is a lie, because it cannot encourage growth, prosperity or friendship.

Passion is the root of all activity. A passion for your alliance, the politics, your friends is what drives your activity as a person because you care for their growth, their prosperity and you enjoy the friendship that comes from it. Peace does not allow for passion to be exerted, it only helps to deteriorate it.

Your statements assume that one cannot be passionate about being peaceful. A passion for peace can, in fact, encourage growth, prosperity and friendship. You seem to back up my statement in the second part of the above quote (bolded).

[Lycurgus Rex]

Your statements assume that one cannot be passionate about being peaceful. A passion for peace can, in fact, encourage growth, prosperity and friendship. You seem to back up my statement in the second part of the above quote (bolded).

hello Gabe.., how have you been? B)

[Wad of Lint]

Most alliances survive as a byproduct of competitiveness. They wish to be the best, the most innovative, or collect statistics of one sort or another. This competitiveness breeds conflict. We thrive on it. We must outgrow, out-compete, and out-fox others. As a result, conflict is necessary. When you are competing against one another, you cannot remain friends indefinitely. Eventually you will be put in direct conflict.

Conflict is a venue to further influence, power, and eventually overtaking those you seek to compete with. This is why the cyberverse can never be peaceful. No alliance with any worth will ever be content sitting in second, fifth, or eighteenth place. We are all advancing, we all seek the same prize. Each and every one of us is biding our time to step up and grab the torch from those who fall before us.

[Mirreille]

That's a load of manure Wad of Lint. Not every single bloc, alliance, or even individual nation is hellbent on trying to be bigger and better then everyone else. That assumption of yours makes your whole analogy useless.

Also, not everyone uses the same means to achieve power or indeed even has the same definition of power itself. It's the difference in these perspectives that often causes some of these conflicts you speak of. Some groups would rather have diplomatic power(pull) rather then military power(push) for example.

(OOC: 'The Peter Principle' is an excellent read on this very subject. )

[Hymenbreach]

We are animals, whether you like it or not. It is in our nature to compete. Why should we want to hold back so that the others have a turn at the water source? It is simply illogical and whether you like it or not, animals we must stay if only because the organic consistency of our brittle carbon-based bodies cannot be changed.

You have every right to settle for what you are. I prefer to rise above my programming and have hope I can do so. Once we are aware of our nature or environment we lose the right to do nothing about it.

You will have to forgive me for wanting the best for us and assuming we are capable of it.

You reject the negativity? Okay. The truth isn't always pleasant, however. I don't know what you wanted to accomplish in this statement.

You're mistaking the truth for how things are. They are not necessarily the same thing.

I'd like some clarification on this statement. Perhaps I am simply not smart or determined enough to make sense of this statement, or perhaps it contains none.

Further to the previous statement, I'm going to assume you are smart enough to understand that you can be a realist about any given situation and yet not want to tolerate it and do nothing but despair and carry on the situation.

True peace as in a world were no man or woman would commit violence or even conceive of violence is impossible as a single angry person would ruin it all.

True, but who is asking for a world without strife and conflict? Not I, just moderation in all things and not taking it to the extreme of war.

Furthermore, although I wish we could achieve peace through entirely honourable methods, just as you hope to have martial victory through honourable means. We are both Idealists in this thinking, but realists in the sense that we must ask individuals to risk their honour so that victory must be won.

Given that, what is the difference between an individual signing a treaty in a spirit less than sincere and a military tactic involving espionage (perhaps from a double agent?). Well, less destruction, growth for more people, etc.

Also peace =/= stagnation. Much can happen in peace and it has as many flavours as war. I say again, if you are bored, do something not to be bored. Have you the imagination to do it peacefully?

Edited April 8, 2009 by Hymenbreach

[Scorbolt]

Also peace =/= stagnation. Much can happen in peace and it has as many flavours as war.

You are correct. Peace = Stagflation.

Now we've got that detail out of the way...

[uaciaut]

Well it depends a lot on what people are actively searching for in this game (from an OOC perspective) i guess. Everyone who really wants peace and nothing more can apply to TDO and GGA.

You don't see the majority of players in those alliances now, do you?

[Wad of Lint]

That's a load of manure Wad of Lint. Not every single bloc, alliance, or even individual nation is hellbent on trying to be bigger and better then everyone else. That assumption of yours makes your whole analogy useless.

Most alliances survive as a byproduct of competitiveness.

Also, not everyone uses the same means to achieve power or indeed even has the same definition of power itself. It's the difference in these perspectives that often causes some of these conflicts you speak of. Some groups would rather have diplomatic power(pull) rather then military power(push) for example.

We are still competing in some way or another. Whether it be for diplomatic pull, military power, statistics, etc. I specifically listed a few examples. No alliance that wishes to be resigned to mediocrity survives for long. We cannot all be on the top, and no alliance wishes to be on the bottom. From this conflict will develop.

(OOC: 'The Peter Principle' is an excellent read on this very subject. )

OOC: 'The Peter Principle' relies on a third party as the judge of competence and promotion. There is no 'manager' to speak of in this game. There is no one promoting alliances. Instead you have many entities vying for different positions. The only judges are themselves. The principle could work in alliance leadership, but fails when it comes to alliance-alliance interactions. Good idea, but wrong application.

[Mirreille]

We are still competing in some way or another. Whether it be for diplomatic pull, military power, statistics, etc. I specifically listed a few examples. No alliance that wishes to be resigned to mediocrity survives for long. We cannot all be on the top, and no alliance wishes to be on the bottom. From this conflict will develop.

I don't know, I still can't see this as a competition. Whether I build 10 points of infra will not have any affect on your ability to buy 10 points of infra; this is more like golf where you are competeing against the course, not each other. I could see alliances fighting over senate seats and tech dealers, since those are limited resources. What you suggest is only true if there are people who are interested enough in unseating the top dogs that they take the necessary steps to do so, take the needed risks in order to do so. I've seen plenty of people in CN complaining that there are not enough such people around right now, for whatever reason.

You still don't seem to accept that there are vast differences in the levels of competitiveness in the player base. Not everyone wants to be the next Electron Sponge. Also, I don't think every new AA that forms has dreams of being the next sanctioned AA, probably quite the opposite. Many AAs will limit their competitiveness to their peers, i.e. other AAs of similar size or NS. Not everyone wants to play the big boys game, and having AAs of different sizes adds diversity to the game.

[Wad of Lint]

You still don't seem to accept that there are vast differences in the levels of competitiveness in the player base. Not everyone wants to be the next Electron Sponge. Also, I don't think every new AA that forms has dreams of being the next sanctioned AA, probably quite the opposite. Many AAs will limit their competitiveness to their peers, i.e. other AAs of similar size or NS. Not everyone wants to play the big boys game, and having AAs of different sizes adds diversity to the game.

The player base is not equivalent to alliances. Alliances still compete for members, compete to get that sanction, compete to survive. This all causes conflict. An alliance that did not compete would not recruit, would not form treaties, and would not participate in politics and foreign affairs. Some alliances attempt this. I am by no means stating all alliances are competing, just the vast majority.

[Juan Valdez]

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.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Ventus ex Gutter]

[OOC]Fine, fine...

...but I ask you...what the hell is so disconcerting about being associated with a common "beast"?

I, for one, love animals.

However, the bigger point that I would make is that Humanity is a savage thing of war, avarice, brutality, and so on. Why? Because we are possessed of minds more complex than that of the common "beast". They say that knowledge is power, and I would agree, but only relative to how society functions. Progression is our chief aspect: those without knowledge will fall behind and be conquered and assimilated by those ahead of them. It is the way of things: The strong always feed on the weak, and this is why "survival of the fittest", while an amoral philosophy in the minds of those still clinging to some illusion of "equality", is still one of the only real truths that may be observed in this world that Humanity has built.

There is also merit in the statement, "If you want peace...prepare for war". If it is peace that you wish, Hymen, then you'd best grab the nearest sharp, blunt, or otherwise deadly object and start hacking away at the nearest walking sack of flesh until it dies. Repeat about six billion more times before turning it upon yourself, and then you will have your prosperous, peaceful world.

As long as Humanity exists, it will continue to consume, defile, and eat away at itself and the world around it while simultaneously growing faster than it can die.

If Humanity cannot die, then Peace will remain a lie...an unattainable fantasy, the same as mine: To see the world stripped of Humanity and all its infrastructure and influence...to be the last man on Earth when this has happened...to join the rest of my kind in the grave once I have witnessed this and known satisfaction with things, at last.

But...it is a fool's hope...what could be so severe to destroy Humanity now would likely destroy the rest of the planet. It's...saddening, really...

While the post above is mostly OOC, it applies because Digiterra is still populated by humans. Give or take, it's pretty much the same thing.[/OOC]

Edited April 11, 2009 by Ventus ex Gutter

[Kzoppistan]

Hmmm.

Some excellent points all around. As for the OP, I admire the optimism. For the other posters, the resolve to remain true to the realities of human existence is also laudable.

When dealing this two opposing philosophical stances I think it's important to keep in mind that while the philosophies may be mutually exclusive, the actual practices are not. Like most dualities, this too is an illusion. No matter how much one loves their particular lens through which they choose to view reality, one must not become so attached to their tree as to miss the entire forest. The middle path between the two extremes is the best trod. For every day must have a night. Everything must have it's balance. For every chemical that excites the bursts of synaptic impulses there is a counter-part that calms the system.

Plants grow at night. People cement what they learn while they're sleeping. A muscle heals while it is in rest. To grow from conflict one must have time to reflect on their growth.

Musashi taught the two sword way of fighting. He demonstrated that it was superior to the single sword variant. But even he advised to use the right weapon for the right job. Not to turn down a more effective weapon just out of personal preference.

Machiavelli said: "Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good." And he went on to say that a Prince must know how to be both good and evil and when to use them.

As for the banning of war, as the OP suggested, I must respectfully disagree by pointing out the impracticality of it. As long as one nation, bloc, what have you, limits itself by not using the full extent of their power, there will be some one else who will use that to their advantage. Especially if survival is at stake. Also, the OP mentioned that he would like to rise above his programming, his intention vaunted if slightly mistaken, as no matter what level of civility and righteousness we as humans ascend to, that will be part of our programming. We are designed by as much culture as nature and genetics and all are evolving processes.

Another point to bring up is the nature of strength. Is it only through conflict that it is gained? Is it defined by how much power one has over another? Could it be defined as adaptability over the ability to damage? What about purely passive creatures that nonetheless survive and prosper? The aphid, for example, eats only one type of plant and has many predators that prey upon it. However, the aphid is often protected by the ant, who "farm" them for the dew they produce. Here is strength of the unconventional sort which does not rely on violence at all. While at first glance they appear weak, under the rule of the ant, in fact, neither survives as well without the other, they are bound. The aphid is one of the most successful creatures of all time. Can we be like the aphid? Probably not, but it's something to think about.

And to add further depth, both philosophies attempt to apply an end state to something that has no end. Peace is not a lie, but it is not a constant. If you are sitting comfortably without any major pressing demands while reading this passage you are in some stage of peace. Would you prefer it to being in conflict? Maybe, maybe not. Further more, having passion all the time causes one to make many blunders in the heat of the moment, for patience is your greatest shield.

In closing, I think it's best to harvest from each philosophy and discard the extremes, for languishing in peace breeds weakness and continuous war leaves no time for growth. We must know when to use the dove as well as the sword.

Edited April 11, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[Kzoppistan]

Kzoppistan, the thread killer strikes again.

[Ventus ex Gutter]

Kzoppistan, the thread killer strikes again.

tl;dr

Also, stoogendoogen.

Now, continue.