Proposed Supplement To Francoism: Analysis Of Ethics

[Dochartaigh]

Francoism isn't irrelevant either. NPO was/is based on Francoism(Whatever that is, I so far haven't seen anyone actually define it without writing a 1,000 word essay), NPO shaped how the game is played. The midnight blitz, the MDP, structure of alliances etc..

About the "NPO/Hegemony got off easy" argument, it's non-sense. It's like saying you are merciful because you spared someone, while ignoring the fact that you had no other option but to spare them. It's not called mercy, it's called lack of different options.

I doubt that NPO is the one who brought about treaties or structure of alliances or any of that. I will give you the midnight blitz though.

[Space Ghost]

Because I'm the only person to ever write an essay on a political philosophy, eh, Tygaland?

Do you crush entire store stocks of twinkies? Yeah, didn't think so.

[Delta1212]

Because I'm the only person to ever write an essay on a political philosophy, eh, Tygaland?

"Karma are hypocrites" isn't a political philosophy no matter what you put in the title of this topic.

[Francesca]

"Karma are hypocrites" isn't a political philosophy no matter what you put in the title of this topic.

Of course not. "Ethics are relative and therefore have no bearing on our actions" is a political philosophy.

[Delta1212]

Of course not. "Ethics are relative and therefore have no bearing on our actions" is a political philosophy.

Perhaps you should have written an essay about why ethics are relative instead of why Karma are hypocrites then.

[Francesca]

Perhaps you should have written an essay about why ethics are relative instead of why Karma are hypocrites then.

Read the first part of my essay again......

[RandomInterrupt]

Because I'm the only person to ever write an essay on a political philosophy, eh, Tygaland?

See, the difference is his made sense whereas yours was stupid pointless propaganda with no redeeming qualities at all.

[Francesca]

See, the difference is his made sense whereas yours was stupid pointless propaganda with no redeeming qualities at all.

Then obviously the issue is not with creating a political philosophy, as I have come under fire for in this thread, but rather the content of said political philosophy. Thank you.

[Il Impero Romano]

How does calling those who identified with Karma hypocrites supplement Francoism?

[Francesca]

How does calling those who identified with Karma hypocrites supplement Francoism?

That was a different part of the essay. It was an analysis of the world through the Francoist perspective that I proposed, necessary because Francoism needs to relate to the practical here and now (which was, after all, the very reason I wrote this.)

[RandomInterrupt]

Then obviously the issue is not with creating a political philosophy, as I have come under fire for in this thread, but rather the content of said political philosophy. Thank you.

It's not just the content either. Geez I guess I have to use a list.

1. You didn't create anything. You said a bunch of stuff that made no sense and was full of lies and poorly thought out statements. Not to mention broad generalizations

2. If you did want to create a political philosophy, then you didn't do a great job

3. Francoism is stupid and you don't even know what it is

Seriously, why can't you just stop posting idiocy for a while.

[Francesca]

It's not just the content either. Geez I guess I have to use a list.

1. You didn't create anything. You said a bunch of stuff that made no sense and was full of lies and poorly thought out statements. Not to mention broad generalizations

2. If you did want to create a political philosophy, then you didn't do a great job

3. Francoism is stupid and you don't even know what it is

Seriously, why can't you just stop posting idiocy for a while.

You're an honourable person and a decent poster, but I don't think this is one of your greatest posts.

[RandomInterrupt]

You're an honourable person and a decent poster, but I don't think this is one of your greatest posts.

Can't be much worse than your OP.

It should be noted that I was one of the folks that spoke out and defended you on these very forums during most of your public issues, but lately I just don't know what you are trying to do. It's like you are actively trying to take your supporters and annoy them till they hate you. If that is your goal, it's working damned fine.

I used to think you were capable of a lot, but this isn't the place to focus your energies. And now that you have joined the NPO... I just don't know what you expect people to do. Your replies and remarks in this thread have been insane. I think you need to slow down and figure out what you actually want. Because if you keep on acting like this, all you will get is a nice fat "CN Crazyperson" label.

[MiasmaCircle]

Francesca and Hell Scream are nothing if not consistant.

The mindless drivel constantly produced by those two is actually rather remarkable.

It's been a very long time since I've seen anyone quite so deluded that they are making a decent point.

[Doitzel]

Because I'm the only person to ever write an essay on a political philosophy, eh, Tygaland?

At least his was in-character and a solid contribution to that realm instead of a pointless blurring of the boundary between the two.

[Il Impero Romano]

That was a different part of the essay. It was an analysis of the world through the Francoist perspective that I proposed, necessary because Francoism needs to relate to the practical here and now (which was, after all, the very reason I wrote this.)

You may want to edit in the rest of it then, the title has very little correlation with the content.

Also, you may want to go back and read the second to last paragraph of my long post on page 14 of that other thread (which you conveniently ignored), its relevant to some underlying themes you've unfortunately displayed here. Id quote myself, but I'm lazy.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Il Impero Romano

[Tygaland]

Because I'm the only person to ever write an essay on a political philosophy, eh, Tygaland?

Thanks for the free advertising!

Your post isn't a philosophy, it is regurgitated anti-Karma boilerplate with a dash of Franco sauce to draw people in. Kudos for that because it sure got the attention you had hoped.

Add to that that my philosophy was one created IC and one I had "lived" in-character as opposed to you picking up a Franco flag and then trying to work out a how to create a platform to wave it from.

[Delta1212]

Well, if you insist...

You start out by defining ethics as the classification of actions as either right or wrong. It's a somewhat simplistic definition, but otherwise essentially correct. Then you go on to assert that ethics have played no part in CN politics before. This is of course correct. Other than being the rallying cry of NPO against LUE, the CoaLUEtion against the NPO, the League against WUT, Aegis against WUT, ~ against UjP, F>I against the Coalition in noCB and Karma against the Hegemony, and the times during various minor wars when alliances were let off with white peace after limited engagement or the times when war was avoided altogether through diplomacy there hasn't really been any intrusion of the concept of ethical conduct in the realm of CN politics whatsoever.

From your second paragraph I gather that ethics are extremely relevant and that I should expect an analysis of ethics from the perspective of the Francoist in relation to the modern world and Karma. That's straightforward enough.

Just to keep a tally, we are currently two paragraphs in and have covered the intro.

Now, your third paragraph is a bit of a gem. First, you assert that all ethics are subjective without an arbitrator such as a deity. Now, in the strictest sense you would be correct, however, this doesn't mean that there are no means whereby a person could establish an ethical code based on objective criteria. In the case of Planet Bob, a potential benchmark for ethical conduct would look something like this: CN derives its existence from the grace of admin. Admin keeps CN functioning because of donations. Donations come from players. Taking actions with the intention of or which have a high probability of decreasing the player base is unethical as it threatens the existence of Planet Bob. That doesn't necessarily have to be the ethical code everyone subscribes to, but it certainly isn't wholly subjective.

Anyway, you then go on to claim that forcing the NPO to conform to others standard of ethical code is imperialism. The problem here is that the moment you violate someone's sovereignty, you lose the ability to claim a violation of sovereignty from others in response. Every alliance has the sovereign right to declare war, but once you have, you must recognize that it is now every other alliance's sovereign right to join that war for whatever reasons they see fit. The entire concept of the casus belli is not an affirmation of your own sovereignty but an establishment of a personal ethical code presented to the public so they can determine the proper response based on their own ethical standard. If you don't want your ethics to be judged, don't use them to interfere with anyone else in the world and no one will interfere with you. Of course, it's when people violate that standard that they get accused of having weak CBs and imperialism.

We are now three paragraphs in. So far we have a mention of ethics being relative but no real reasoning to back it up other than the statement that "philosophers agree" and one claim that Karma are hypocritical for being imperialists. No mention of the fact that we shouldn't use ethics to determine our own actions in the political sphere yet.

Now we have the fourth paragraph. This one consists of attempting to answer the question of whether Karma are hypocrites. You have three rhetorical questions intended to imply that Karma are hypocrites followed by a statement that the answer to these questions is that Karma are either hypocrites or hypocrites.

We now have four paragraphs down, two of which were into, one of which was split between the claim that ethics are subjective and the claim that Karma are hypocrites and one that says nothing except that Karma are hypocrites.

Now we have the fifth paragraph, short and sweet. You essentially state that Karma are hypocrites for how they used faux moral outrage to beat NPO.

Five paragraphs in, we have two intro, one split between "Ethics are relative and therefore have no bearing on our actions" and "Karma are hypocrites" and two addressing only the latter. Of the "Ethics are relative and therefore have no bearing on our actions" parts that we've seen, they have only addressed "Ethics are relative" and no evidence was presented for this besides the statement that it was just so. Moving on.

This was my favorite paragraph so I'm going to actually quote it:

The author is inclined to believe in the second option, that the Karma War was not fought because Karma’s leaders believed that what the New Pacific Order had done was immoral, but because Karma wanted revenge for the various wars they had fought and lost against the New Pacific Order, or more personal grievances with the leadership of the New Pacific Order. Frankly, there is no reason for ordinary Karma members, who have perhaps bought into the “evil NPO” propaganda, to fight and die in wars because of the personal grievances of their leaders.

In summary, "Karma didn't fight NPO because they thought Pacifica's actions were wrong, but because they felt wronged by Pacifica's actions. Also, the general membership of the alliances shouldn't have been forced to fight in a war they wanted to fight because their opinions were wrong." Chalk one more up to "Karma are hypocrites."

Six paragraphs in. Two intro paragraphs. One detailing the "Ethics are relative" portion of "Ethics are relative and therefore have no bearing on our actions" along with a shot at "Karma are hypocrites" and three paragraphs of "Karma are hypocrites."

You final paragraph consists of stating that the name Karma reflects the true motives of the coalition and that these motives are contrary to the stated motives, ergo Karma are hypocrites.

Final analysis:

Of your seven paragraphs, four were devoted entirely to the line of "Karma are hypocrites" with no mention of "Ethics are relative and therefore have no bearing on our actions" and two more were intro. This leaves one paragraph to deal with "Ethics are relative and therefore have no bearing on our actions" except that you only addressed the idea that ethics are relative, never once mentioning in your entire essay anything remotely resembling the idea that they shouldn't have any bearing on our actions. Not only this, but you presented absolutely nothing to support the idea that ethics are relative in the way or facts or logic. All of the references to events and all rhetorical devices in the essay were used toward the end of convincing the reader that "Karma are hypocrites" so if your intent was to write an essay about the political philosophy "Ethics are relative and therefore have no bearing on our actions" then you failed horribly.

[Francesca]

it is regurgitated anti-Karma boilerplate with a dash of Franco sauce

I see you like that description, having stated it to me in query just a few moments ago. How long did it take you to come up with it?

[The Big Bad]

Thanks for the free advertising!

Your post isn't a philosophy, it is regurgitated anti-Karma boilerplate with a dash of Franco sauce to draw people in. Kudos for that because it sure got the attention you had hoped.

Add to that that my philosophy was one created IC and one I had "lived" in-character as opposed to you picking up a Franco flag and then trying to work out a how to create a platform to wave it from.

Tyga glad to see you still on the prowl.

[Jipps]

Why is it so often assumed ethics started and ended with the Karma War? Francesca, you should have posted this in the World Affairs section. Even that wouldn't save this thread from criticism, you should have stuck with your more general outlook on ethics instead of narrowing it down to a brief historical moment and spouting opinions about said moment.

[Tygaland]

Tyga glad to see you still on the prowl.

I've never been able to find the exit.

Welcome back, by the way.

I see you like that description, having stated it to me in query just a few moments ago. How long did it take you to come up with it?

I find it to be a fitting description and, as with most of my work, was put together on the spur of the moment. I'm not much for dress-rehearsals and pre-written speeches.

[Francesca]

Well, if you insist...

You start out by defining ethics as the classification of actions as either right or wrong. It's a somewhat simplistic definition, but otherwise essentially correct. Then you go on to assert that ethics have played no part in CN politics before. This is of course correct. Other than being the rallying cry of NPO against LUE, the CoaLUEtion against the NPO, the League against WUT, Aegis against WUT, ~ against UjP, F>I against the Coalition in noCB and Karma against the Hegemony, and the times during various minor wars when alliances were let off with white peace after limited engagement or the times when war was avoided altogether through diplomacy there hasn't really been any intrusion of the concept of ethical conduct in the realm of CN politics whatsoever.

From your second paragraph I gather that ethics are extremely relevant and that I should expect an analysis of ethics from the perspective of the Francoist in relation to the modern world and Karma. That's straightforward enough.

Just to keep a tally, we are currently two paragraphs in and have covered the intro.

Now, your third paragraph is a bit of a gem. First, you assert that all ethics are subjective without an arbitrator such as a deity. Now, in the strictest sense you would be correct, however, this doesn't mean that there are no means whereby a person could establish an ethical code based on objective criteria. In the case of Planet Bob, a potential benchmark for ethical conduct would look something like this: CN derives its existence from the grace of admin. Admin keeps CN functioning because of donations. Donations come from players. Taking actions with the intention of or which have a high probability of decreasing the player base is unethical as it threatens the existence of Planet Bob. That doesn't necessarily have to be the ethical code everyone subscribes to, but it certainly isn't wholly subjective.

Anyway, you then go on to claim that forcing the NPO to conform to others standard of ethical code is imperialism. The problem here is that the moment you violate someone's sovereignty, you lose the ability to claim a violation of sovereignty from others in response. Every alliance has the sovereign right to declare war, but once you have, you must recognize that it is now every other alliance's sovereign right to join that war for whatever reasons they see fit. The entire concept of the casus belli is not an affirmation of your own sovereignty but an establishment of a personal ethical code presented to the public so they can determine the proper response based on their own ethical standard. If you don't want your ethics to be judged, don't use them to interfere with anyone else in the world and no one will interfere with you. Of course, it's when people violate that standard that they get accused of having weak CBs and imperialism.

We are now three paragraphs in. So far we have a mention of ethics being relative but no real reasoning to back it up other than the statement that "philosophers agree" and one claim that Karma are hypocritical for being imperialists. No mention of the fact that we shouldn't use ethics to determine our own actions in the political sphere yet.

Now we have the fourth paragraph. This one consists of attempting to answer the question of whether Karma are hypocrites. You have three rhetorical questions intended to imply that Karma are hypocrites followed by a statement that the answer to these questions is that Karma are either hypocrites or hypocrites.

We now have four paragraphs down, two of which were into, one of which was split between the claim that ethics are subjective and the claim that Karma are hypocrites and one that says nothing except that Karma are hypocrites.

Now we have the fifth paragraph, short and sweet. You essentially state that Karma are hypocrites for how they used faux moral outrage to beat NPO.

Five paragraphs in, we have two intro, one split between "Ethics are relative and therefore have no bearing on our actions" and "Karma are hypocrites" and two addressing only the latter. Of the "Ethics are relative and therefore have no bearing on our actions" parts that we've seen, they have only addressed "Ethics are relative" and no evidence was presented for this besides the statement that it was just so. Moving on.

This was my favorite paragraph so I'm going to actually quote it:

In summary, "Karma didn't fight NPO because they thought Pacifica's actions were wrong, but because they felt wronged by Pacifica's actions. Also, the general membership of the alliances shouldn't have been forced to fight in a war they wanted to fight because their opinions were wrong." Chalk one more up to "Karma are hypocrites."

Six paragraphs in. Two intro paragraphs. One detailing the "Ethics are relative" portion of "Ethics are relative and therefore have no bearing on our actions" along with a shot at "Karma are hypocrites" and three paragraphs of "Karma are hypocrites."

You final paragraph consists of stating that the name Karma reflects the true motives of the coalition and that these motives are contrary to the stated motives, ergo Karma are hypocrites.

Final analysis:

Of your seven paragraphs, four were devoted entirely to the line of "Karma are hypocrites" with no mention of "Ethics are relative and therefore have no bearing on our actions" and two more were intro. This leaves one paragraph to deal with "Ethics are relative and therefore have no bearing on our actions" except that you only addressed the idea that ethics are relative, never once mentioning in your entire essay anything remotely resembling the idea that they shouldn't have any bearing on our actions. Not only this, but you presented absolutely nothing to support the idea that ethics are relative in the way or facts or logic. All of the references to events and all rhetorical devices in the essay were used toward the end of convincing the reader that "Karma are hypocrites" so if your intent was to write an essay about the political philosophy "Ethics are relative and therefore have no bearing on our actions" then you failed horribly.

This is the sort of post I was looking for. Good, solid analysis of what I wrote. Thank you for an excellent post.

Essentially, I assumed that people would concur that without some sort of divine arbitrator, ethics became subjective. For anyone who has read philosophy in any detail, it seems to be a cut-and-dried conclusion. You only need to illustrate the variances in opinion that different people hold, point out that there is nothing to determine who is correct, and presto, your point is made (to be honest, I could write books expanding on why ethics are subjective without a deity, this is extremely simplified in the interests of avoiding a wall of text.)

[ModusOperandi]

All I saw was blah blah blah blah blah.

You rhetoric swindlers have really gotten out of touch with the real world.

[Bird of Passage]

The Bird sighed dismally.

Do you, Francesca, believe in your own ethics and mores? Once, you were ardently opposed to Pacifica for those very concepts.

But this is not an essay about ethics and mores, Fran. It is not an analysis of thought on Digiterra...it is a Pacifican propaganda piece without the incredible writing prowess of Vladimir to confuse the rest. I mean not to dismiss it merely for that fact...being that I am not the Karmic people that you describe, I cannot know their true intent. I suspect genuine claims from some parties, and suspect vengeful or malicious intent from others.

Karma was a diverse coalition, Fran. Not all of its parties were necessarily taking any moral high-ground, and some, such as the future Frostbite alliances, did not even consider themselves a part of it, being as such because "Karma" was what all of those alliances were automatically grouped into.

As well, "Karma" is something to remember it by...was it vengeful? It would certainly be laughable to claim that such was not involved. Was it ethical? For the most part, until Echelon's Surrender. In all actuality, though, the name of the Karma Coalition was just that: a name. If it had been the embodiment of Karma, it would have been much more ruthless, unforgiving, and unmerciful. In retrospect, however, the punishments given were by no means severe enough for the crimes. Would I have been as lenient? Very likely, I admit...but if it were truly and wholly about vengeance...then Pacifica would not be free for another three years, and its allies would have seen similar deals.

I do not regard Karma as innocent either...its name was unfitting...its stated intent was not always followed through...its true intent was questionable at best...

...but I cannot help but be bothered by how quickly and easily Pacifica has you here, publicly, claiming a Pacifican moral high-ground, spreading their propaganda. I know that you have more forethought than this...

...your affiliation to one side of the spectrum does not necessitate spreading its propaganda, Fran. It is possible to be neutral, notwithstanding one's Alliance Affiliation.

That is all that I will say on the matter.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Bird of Passage