bbrownso Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 I don't believe the point is that the Mushroom Kingdom or Genesis sat by, it's the fact some of the alliances who condemn NPO's actions partook in much of them such as the GPA-Continuum war.You've blown my point way off course. Well Aut, part of it was that some Karma alliances partook in the actions NPO is condemned for. But I was also pointing out that most of CN had a chance to show their values on what NPO was doing and decided that doing nothing and saving their infra was more important than doing the "right" thing. So it's a little late to be playing the morality card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Depends on who is using it, from a nation that has never accepted one penny of reparations or demanded anything other than white peace for opponents, and belongs to an alliance (my only alliance ever) that also has never asked for anything more I feel I can use the word with meaning and effect. Meaning is imparted by context not by the identity of the speaker. You could be pure as a lilly white rose but that doesn't mean you're using the term properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Meaning is imparted by context not by the identity of the speaker. You could be pure as a lilly white rose but that doesn't mean you're using the term properly. I'm pretty sure condemning someone for practices you happily do yourself is hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raincoat2 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Actually, GOD is a member inside of Karma Unfortunately, I don't think Holy Admin can judge the NPO because of the mula, so we did it for him. Also, with your argument against FOK: People change, their judgement changes, their feelings change. If they thought those things were ok in the past, they might have had a change of heart, but NPO never did. I think he raises a valid point though. If they have truly changed, why don't they make any attempt at restitution for the past wrongs they have commited? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Meaning is imparted by context not by the identity of the speaker. You could be pure as a lilly white rose but that doesn't mean you're using the term properly. I respectfully disagree. Hypocrisy is one of the lovely things in the universe that all people are capable of, everyone excuses of themselves and condemns in others, and in general I believe at least to be one of the fundamental traits of being a human being. We're not fond of applying a universal set of standards to our behavior. While this makes being hypocritical as natural to us as breathing or eating steak (which the radical vegetarians amongst us will point out as a hypocritical activity) it's sheer obviousness and disagreeable nature also means that people will never stop being offended by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 The title is a bit misleading, as Karma didn't make you a Pacifican, they just helped revamp your resolve for the NPO.And I can understand, due to your lack of knowledge in regards to the History and the Politics, how the comments being made might seem a bit harsh - however one only has to read the old posts by some of your very comrades (Moo Cows, Dilber, etc) to see what has spurred this distaste (and hatred in some cases) for the NPO. The harshness of comments is not made right or wrong by past comments towards those people. As I wouldn't confirm or deny that those people have made such comments as you claim, it doesn't make the way many Karma members have acted respectable or honorable at all. We are all charged with behaving the way we would like to be perceived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Actually, GOD is a member inside of Karma wink.gifUnfortunately, I don't think Holy Admin can judge the NPO because of the mula, so we did it for him. Also, with your argument against FOK: People change, their judgement changes, their feelings change. If they thought those things were ok in the past, they might have had a change of heart, but NPO never did. So if FOK admits they had a change of heart, then they admit that they were wrong at one point at WERE guilty of the same thing Karma blames the NPO for. So just as Karma (and FOK) sees fit to seek reparations and revenge for past wrongs from the NPO, shouldn'tFOK be willing to pay for their wrongs as well of their own will to those that they harmed? Seems to me FOK is willing to take revenge, but not offer it for what they have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerius Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Karma has absolutely no moral high ground to stand on here. They say now it was never about having better morals than the NPO. So I don;t see why you are even bringing morals into it. Karma has no morals. As has already been stated, Karma is no more than a loose union of alliances with a common purpose. Karma is not a bloc and has no one, definitive voice. The reason I support Karma is because I can identify with their collective dislike for Pacifica and the old Hegemony, a disliking which seems to be shared by a majority of people. Whilst the reasons for this disliking may vary, they all stem from Pacifica's behaviour these past two years. You can't deny this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
menwearpink135 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 So if FOK admits they had a change of heart, then they admit that they were wrong at one point at WERE guilty of the same thing Karma blames the NPO for. So just as Karma (and FOK) sees fit to seek reparations and revenge for past wrongs from the NPO, shouldn'tFOK be willing to pay for their wrongs as well of their own will to those that they harmed? Seems to me FOK is willing to take revenge, but not offer it for what they have done. They realize their wrong-doings, and agree with everyone else that NPO is what they were said to be for so long. I guess they have proven themselves to be different, and no longer need to be held to their past-actions. Plus, they are basically avenging those they wronged by attacking NPO. NPO on the other hand, has not tried to be different whatsoever, and are still being held for their past actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Mercy came in GWI, it was not returned. There was no mercy involved in GW1, only fracturing of one side prevented NPO from facing down some painful terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I respectfully disagree. Hypocrisy is one of the lovely things in the universe that all people are capable of, everyone excuses of themselves and condemns in others, and in general I believe at least to be one of the fundamental traits of being a human being. We're not fond of applying a universal set of standards to our behavior.While this makes being hypocritical as natural to us as breathing or eating steak (which the radical vegetarians amongst us will point out as a hypocritical activity) it's sheer obviousness and disagreeable nature also means that people will never stop being offended by it. None of which means he or most of the people tossing it around these days are using it correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raincoat2 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 They realize their wrong-doings, and agree with everyone else that NPO is what they were said to be for so long. I guess they have proven themselves to be different, and no longer need to be held to their past-actions. Plus, they are basically avenging those they wronged by attacking NPO. NPO on the other hand, has not tried to be different whatsoever, and are still being held for their past actions. How exactly? They are continuing to put harsh terms on alliances and are making no reperations for past harsh terms. Recognizing NPO is a threat that needs to be fought is not the same as realizing their wrong doing. I am not saying that anyone should force them to pay reparations for what happened, but that if FoK TRULY feels that what they had done is wrong, they would make reparations for it. Otherwise, its nothing more than talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 None of which means he or most of the people tossing it around these days are using it correctly. I don't believe the problem is so much that people are bandying the term around, as much as there is just so MUCH hypocrisy that it's like trying to get worked up about graphic violence 1 hour into a horror movie. We have become desensitized to hypocrisy, and we just assume now that people are going to be hypocritical. I have seen far more surprise when people actually do apply some sort of equal standard to themselves or others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I don't believe the problem is so much that people are bandying the term around, as much as there is just so MUCH hypocrisy that it's like trying to get worked up about graphic violence 1 hour into a horror movie. We have become desensitized to hypocrisy, and we just assume now that people are going to be hypocritical.I have seen far more surprise when people actually do apply some sort of equal standard to themselves or others. People still keep using it in places where it isn't appropriate. Just because some other people have used it appropriately or it would be applicable in the situation if properly utilized doesn't change the fact that it's been ground into meaninglessness by people who've essentially be using it as a synonym for bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 They realize their wrong-doings, and agree with everyone else that NPO is what they were said to be for so long. I guess they have proven themselves to be different, and no longer need to be held to their past-actions. Plus, they are basically avenging those they wronged by attacking NPO. NPO on the other hand, has not tried to be different whatsoever, and are still being held for their past actions. They've done nothing more than switch to the winning side, not so different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
menwearpink135 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 How exactly? They are continuing to put harsh terms on alliances and are making no reperations for past harsh terms. Recognizing NPO is a threat that needs to be fought is not the same as realizing their wrong doing. I am not saying that anyone should force them to pay reparations for what happened, but that if FoK TRULY feels that what they had done is wrong, they would make reparations for it. Otherwise, its nothing more than talk. They've done nothing more than switch to the winning side, not so different. Are you two in the back channels with FOK hearing their government's every stance and in their discussions with foreign alliances? I'm not saying I am either, but I know my government has, and I know that FOK is not an alliance that manipulates and backstabs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Are you two in the back channels with FOK hearing their government's every stance and in their discussions with foreign alliances? I'm not saying I am either, but I know my government has, and I know that FOK is not an alliance that manipulates and backstabs. Their actions speak for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 (edited) They've done nothing more than switch to the winning side, not so different. FOK switched way before it was the "winning" side. Hell, most people did. There is a very small group that switched after the writing was on the wall and it doesn't include a lot of the alliances most people think it does. "The winning side" is a lot clearer in retrospect or when picking out who you think is going to win is a mental exercise that doesn't hold any consequences for you or your friends if you're wrong. The gov levels may have access to a llot of information, but that doesn't mean we knew which side was actually going to win until the first shot was fired. Edit: Even ignoring that, FOK bowed out of the Hegemony while it was still in the lead. Edited June 20, 2009 by Delta1212 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 People still keep using it in places where it isn't appropriate. Just because some other people have used it appropriately or it would be applicable in the situation if properly utilized doesn't change the fact that it's been ground into meaninglessness by people who've essentially be using it as a synonym for bad. I've mostly seen it used as a synonym for irony. Just because something is highly ironic doesn't necessarily (though often it does) imply there is hypocrisy involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I've mostly seen it used as a synonym for irony. Just because something is highly ironic doesn't necessarily (though often it does) imply there is hypocrisy involved. Both instances, its meaning is being butchered, which is my point. It gets tossed around so much with so little regard for accuracy that it has lost all sense of meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Both instances, its meaning is being butchered, which is my point. It gets tossed around so much with so little regard for accuracy that it has lost all sense of meaning. I am going to roll with it just as I used it, unless of course you wish to debate the following: Hypocrite: a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metictype Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Ignoring all else (cause I didn't have the time to read through some of it), props has to be given to NPO for how they do manage their internals, as does every other santioned alliance in that case. It's what differentiates them from the majority of the "normal" alliances. They get to where they are mostly in part due to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I am going to roll with it just as I used it, unless of course you wish to debate the following: Hypocrite: a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. I don't think he's criticizing your use of it per se, as that when NPO tosses it around ten or more times on each page of a thread we, the OWF readers, just sort of glaze over whenever anyone uses it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I am going to roll with it just as I used it, unless of course you wish to debate the following: Hypocrite: a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. So you can only discuss how evil the NPO is and nothing more? Weak stuff there, in fact I think I will throw out the word hypocrite. Only discussing how evil NPO is does not make you a hypocrite unless you champion talking about everyone's level of evil. Calling NPO evil for doing the same things you do would be hypocritical but that's not the context you used it in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Only discussing how evil NPO is does not make you a hypocrite unless you champion talking about everyone's level of evil. Calling NPO evil for doing the same things you do would be hypocritical but that's not the context you used it in. Only discussing NPO's actions and actively avoiding discussing their own similar actions falls into that category. 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.