Epicurean Announcement

[pezstar]

lol optional everything. I thought we'd got away from pointless treaties (well ok, it's a NAP).

Yeah. Aside from the NAP aspect of it, the treaty already existed with the basic principles of sovereignty. But now I feel like a jerk, because you know they are just so proud of that OADP.

[HurricaneLOL]

optional treaties are optional.

o/ NSO

o/ Bel Air

[Goldie]

i like epicurean, i like tetris, therefore i like this news

[USMC123]

Yeah. Aside from the NAP aspect of it, the treaty already existed with the basic principles of sovereignty. But now I feel like a jerk, because you know they are just so proud of that OADP.

Yes, since alliances attack to defend (or attack with) other alliances without a treaty.

As was said, this was the highest level treaty we can sign because Epicurean is in Ragnablok. It would have been an MDoAP had Epicurean been allowed.

[Mongrel]

It's not a matter of "They tried and came close enough," it's a matter of "They literally are advocating the opposite of what Epicurus did."

And we're doing it all for you to get your panties in a knot.

[Systemfailure]

And we're doing it all for you to get your panties in a knot.

we actually only signed this treaty to bait NSO, but keep it on the down low

o/ Coloured Blocks

o/ Epic Win

[TailsK]

It's not a matter of "They tried and came close enough," it's a matter of "They literally are advocating the opposite of what Epicurus did."

I love his reasoning:

[10:05:30] <+Heggo[NSO]> the only way for your alliance at all to live up to the works of epicurus

[10:05:37] <+Heggo[NSO]> is for your nations over 50k or so

[10:05:43] <+Heggo[NSO]> to sell infrastructure and tech

If it bothers you so much, do something about it

[heggo]

Yes, since alliances attack to defend (or attack with) other alliances without a treaty.

Moldavi Doctrine.

And Tailsy, my friend, someday. Someday. Note that my solution is logical though: being a proper Epicurean ascetic would require abandoning your wealth.

[TailsK]

Moldavi Doctrine.

And Tailsy, my friend, someday. Someday. Note that my solution is logical though: being a proper Epicurean ascetic would require abandoning your wealth.

We play the game to have fun and enjoy the experience. Part of said experience, and part of the fun for us, is nation growth. Using your own argument, you could say that our nations should have zero infrastructure and zero technology, because we don't *need* any of that to enjoy the game. But then you wouldn't be enjoying the game

Edited October 1, 2009 by TailsK

[Mongrel]

Oh I see he's really a Pacifican at heart. This reminds me of the many who used to dictate neutrality to us when we were greenies. Only this one is even funnier to watch.

[Hegemon Rob]

congrats you guys. Epic and tetris are both very good alliances.

[heggo]

We play the game to have fun and enjoy the experience. Part of said experience, and part of the fun for us, is nation growth. Using your own argument, you could say that our nations should have zero infrastructure and zero technology, because we don't *need* any of that to enjoy the game.

Look, the ultimate point is that Epicurus argued that growth (okay, actually wealth and any form of luxury - a term which he defined quite loosely - that might complicate your life) isn't fun. You can't be Epicurean and think that growth is fun because growth is the acquisition of wealth and luxury.

[TailsK]

Look, the ultimate point is that Epicurus argued that growth (okay, actually wealth and any form of luxury - a term which he defined quite loosely - that might complicate your life) isn't fun. You can't be Epicurean and think that growth is fun because growth is the acquisition of wealth and luxury.

That's the ultimate point? I thought the ultimate point was happiness.

[Salmia]

This grouping definitely makes sense to me.

Good luck to both parties involved.

UMSC

[Mongrel]

Look, the ultimate point is that Epicurus argued that growth (okay, actually wealth and any form of luxury - a term which he defined quite loosely - that might complicate your life) isn't fun. You can't be Epicurean and think that growth is fun because growth is the acquisition of wealth and luxury.

The second time you've drawn vague lines about Epicurus' philosophy. Where exactly in Epicurus' writings do you see a reference to the maximum amount of imaginary wealth that disqualifies you as a disciple of Epicureanism?

I suppose the fatal flaw of our alliance is taking on the name of a real philosphy as opposed to yours, which origninated from a story written for pre-pubescent children where the only real ideals you have to stick to is that of being the "Bad guy".

[heggo]

He was a Hedonist, but he also declared that the only way to access happiness was through what amounted to asceticism. In fact, he didn't really even advocate happiness or fun. He advocated merely the absence of pain and suffering, a difficult to translate term that comes kinda close to tranquility.

Edit:

The second time you've drawn vague lines about Epicurus' philosophy. Where exactly in Epicurus' writings do you see a reference to the maximum amount of imaginary wealth that disqualifies you as a disciple of Epicureanism?

I suppose the fatal flaw of our alliance is taking on the name of a real philosphy[sic] as opposed to yours, which origninated[sic] from a story written for pre-pubescent children where the only real ideals you have to stick to is that of being the "Bad guy".

There's no bright line, but a reasonability test shows that if you declare your aim is growth, have 70k+ nations, and advocate living it up for the fun of it, you probably don't meet the standards of a disciple.

Also, insulting me doesn't help you: note that I am the one here teaching you what you already should know. If the transitive property holds...

Edited October 1, 2009 by heggo

[TailsK]

I suppose the fatal flaw of our alliance is taking on the name of a real philosphy as opposed to yours, which origninated from a story written for pre-pubescent children where the only real ideals you have to stick to is that of being the "Bad guy".

Careful Mongrel... He'll get his lightsaber out! He really does have one!

[TailsK]

note that I am the one here teaching you what you already should know.

You mean attempt to troll?

[Mongrel]

He was a Hedonist, but he also declared that the only way to access happiness was through what amounted to asceticism.

Edit:

There's no bright line, but a reasonability test shows that if you declare your aim is growth, have 70k+ nations, and advocate living it up, you probably don't meet the standards of a disciple.

Insulting me doesn't help you: note that I am the one here teaching you what you already should know.

Once again it's all blurry lines. I'm sorry I didn't realize I was in a class here, I'm gonna head on down to the office and drop this one so I can get my money back, this guy teaching here is obviously an idiot.

[heggo]

Y'all haven't actually read any of the works of your namesake have you? Or did you find it to be too "blurry" and give up before you realized he was more than just a conventional hedonist?

Edited October 1, 2009 by heggo

[Salmia]

You know I am loving that someone is trying to dictate how another alliance applies a theme or philosophy to their own alliance. My own alliance is based off a theme that I have never read the books of yet I am the HoFA of my own alliance. Each alliance decides how it impacts what they do and to what extent.

It is not up to you to decide how a chosen name impacts how they grow or how they do things. Just because they chose a particular name doesn't mean they follow it 100% to the word. It is up to them how it shapes their alliance and how much impact it has. Some people take it more seriously than others but it is not really your choice to demand that they follow your strict guidelines. Other alliances are based off many themes but you don't see them all taking it to heart 100%. That is their choice and you can choose to criticize an alliance for it but it is not you that makes their policy and it is rather silly to demand that they follow your strict hopes for a theme.

After all, it is their alliance, not yours.

[Joe Stupid]

I hate both alliances and wish to see them fail.

[Mongrel]

Hi there heggo, in case you haven't noticed, you are the only one who cares about your arguments.

I suggest you visit your doctor and ask them to increase the dosage of your medication, it's obvious that the effectiveness is wearing off.

Oh Yes I should add I look forward to your next edited reply.

tl;dr --- Ooooooooh you have me sooooooo upset.

[heggo]

It is not up to you to decide how a chosen name impacts how they grow or how they do things. Just because they chose a particular name doesn't mean they follow it 100% to the word.... Some people take it more seriously than others but it is not really your choice to demand that they follow your strict guidelines. ... That is their choice and you can choose to criticize an alliance for it but it is not you that makes their policy and it is rather silly to demand that they follow your strict hopes for a theme.

After all, it is their alliance, not yours.

It may be their alliance, but Epicurus belongs to everybody now. You can't just take a philosophy, turn its intent pi radians, and then call it the same thing. To clarify, it's not a matter of failing to follow something to the letter, of someone just barely missing the 100% mark. It's a matter of someone getting roughly zero percent of what makes Epicurus unique.

In short, I will not (argumentatively, anyway) permit you to take relativism to its absurd conclusion: that obvious untruths and inaccuracies should be accepted because maybe that's just how other people think the world is.

[Logan]

In Tetris we dress up in cardboard boxes that resemble tetrominoes and jump off buildings in attempt to make neat stacks of bodies. That's how seriously we take our theme.