Future of the Red Team

[Lord of Destruction]

So the NPO's occupation of the red team was morally acceptable right up until Karma removed it's ability to keep it up? I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Morality is not subject to circumstances.

I don't care about morals. Morals are beliefs, personal ones at that. There may be generally accepted ones, but that doesn't necessarily make that belief correct.

They had the ability to do it, and they had the power to do it, so they had a right to do it until that ability and power was taken away. Doesn't mean they should have done it, but they had every right to try. Imposing your personal belief system on everyone else is ridiculous.

[Vilien]

I don't care about morals. Morals are beliefs, personal ones at that. There may be generally accepted ones, but that doesn't necessarily make that belief correct.

They had the ability to do it, and they had the power to do it, so they had a right to do it until that ability and power was taken away. Doesn't mean they should have done it, but they had every right to try. Imposing your personal belief system on everyone else is ridiculous.

Interesting, because that seemed to be the exact aim of the Moldavi Doctrine.

[TehChron]

Interesting, because that seemed to be the exact aim of the Moldavi Doctrine.

Actually, to be fair, insulation from other beliefs would be a more accurate description.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Chron

[Lord of Destruction]

Interesting, because that seemed to be the exact aim of the Moldavi Doctrine.

Just because it's ridiculous doesn't mean you don't have the right to try to do it

[Francesca]

Imposing your personal belief system on everyone else is ridiculous.

I haven't decided what my character thinks of morality at the moment, but I thought I would say this: if a system is objective, for example, mathematics.... would it occur to you to say 'don't impose your algebra on everyone else?' Of course not. In the same way, if one believes in objective ethics, I don't see what's wrong with the expectation that others conform to that.

I also thought I would point out that your statement in itself makes claims about what is moral or not, and expects us to conform to that.

'It is a curious mark of our age that the only absolute allowed is the absolute certainty that there is no absolute.'

Edited November 11, 2009 by Francesca

[Lord of Destruction]

I haven't decided what my character thinks of morality at the moment, but I thought I would say this: if a system is objective, for example, mathematics.... would it occur to you to say 'don't impose your algebra on everyone else?' Of course not. In the same way, if one believes in objective ethics, I don't see what's wrong with the expectation that others conform to that.

I also thought I would point out that your statement in itself makes claims about what is moral or not, and expects us to conform to that.

'It is a curious mark of our age that the only absolute allowed is the absolute certainty that there is no absolute.'

Mathematics is definite. Morals are not. There are those who have different morals than you, making what I said true, and what you said nonsensical.

I do not expect everyone to be logical, just wish for them to be.

[Francesca]

Mathematics is definite. Morals are not.

Please provide evidence for that statement.

Regardless, the belief that both systems are objective is what matters when deciding whether to act as if they are objective, not how the systems really are.

You also failed to rebut my second point.

[Lord of Destruction]

Please provide evidence for that statement.

Regardless, the belief that both systems are objective is what matters when deciding whether to act as if they are objective, not how the systems really are.

You also failed to rebut my second point.

Morals are beliefs, and therefore opinions. People have different opinions on subjects. You and I speaking about this in such a manner is proof enough, although none really is needed.

Also, I was disagreeing with the "both systems are objective". Math has rules, Morals do not. Morals are thoughts, and therefore cannot essentially be "wrong".

I also did not fail to give a rebuttal to your second point, as I responded by informing you that I do not have expectations of everyone to believe what I said, as I do not expect everyone to be logical, I only wish them to be.

[Francesca]

Morals are beliefs, and therefore opinions. People have different opinions on subjects. You and I speaking about this in such a manner is proof enough, although none really is needed.

I have an opinion on whether the earth goes around the sun. Let us imagine that a person from Africa believes that the sun goes around the earth, and we argue this, and present evidence for our opinions. Does that make it subjective? Of course not. In the same way, the fact that you are arguing with me about morals proves nothing.

Also, I was disagreeing with the "both systems are objective". Math has rules, Morals do not. Morals are thoughts, and therefore cannot essentially be "wrong".

On the contrary, morals are essentially a set of laws, a set of rules, regarding how people act. I don't see why the fact that anything is a thought means it is relative, but regardless, once a thought progresses to the stage that it effects how we act and the world around us, it is more than a thought.

I also did not fail to give a rebuttal to your second point, as I responded by informing you that I do not have expectations of everyone to believe what I said, as I do not expect everyone to be logical, I only wish them to be.

I feel that the way you phrased it and your contemptuous distaste for objective values is being intolerant, something which you have implied is a value dear to your heart.

[Vilien]

On the contrary, morals are essentially a set of laws, a set of rules, regarding how people act. I don't see why the fact that anything is a thought means it is relative, but regardless, once a thought progresses to the stage that it effects how we act and the world around us, it is more than a thought.

It remains a thought. An opinion, though acted upon, remains an opinion. If I take action based on the belief that you are, in fact, a lizard, it does not immediately make my opinion that you are a lizard a fact. You are not a lizard. Lizards cannot type.

[Lord of Destruction]

I have an opinion on whether the earth goes around the sun. Let us imagine that a person from Africa believes that the sun goes around the earth, and we argue this, and present evidence for our opinions. Does that make it subjective? Of course not. In the same way, the fact that you are arguing with me about morals proves nothing.

On the contrary, morals are essentially a set of laws, a set of rules, regarding how people act. I don't see why the fact that anything is a thought means it is relative, but regardless, once a thought progresses to the stage that it effects how we act and the world around us, it is more than a thought.

I feel that the way you phrased it and your contemptuous distaste for objective values is being intolerant, something which you have implied is a value dear to your heart.

First: Terrible analogy. I told you that you and I disagreeing on morals is proof that people have different opinions. You show up with an example of an uninformed man in Africa. You and I having different opinions on morals is proof that different people have different opinions. There is no way you can deny that. That is fact, not opinion.

Secondly: Some laws may be based on a collection of people who share the same morals (beliefs), but that doesn't necessarily mean that all morals (beliefs) are made into, or should ever be made into, laws. They're not rules. They made be a societal guideline at times, but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with the morals that are held up by the group in power, nor does it mean that the guideline is intelligent or good.

Lastly: I refuse to play your game of semantics any longer. Have fun in your imaginary world where human morals are God.

[Valerius]

My beliefs do not require you to share them. All I can do is act according to them, and judge others by them.

[Francesca]

First: Terrible analogy. I told you that you and I disagreeing on morals is proof that people have different opinions. You show up with an example of an uninformed man in Africa. You and I having different opinions on morals is proof that different people have different opinions. There is no way you can deny that. That is fact, not opinion.

Of course we have different opinions, and are debating them. I never denied that. What I claimed was that the fact that we disagreed did not prove that what we are debating is relative.

Secondly: Some laws may be based on a collection of people who share the same morals (beliefs), but that doesn't necessarily mean that all morals (beliefs) are made into, or should ever be made into, laws. They're not rules. They made be a societal guideline at times, but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with the morals that are held up by the group in power, nor does it mean that the guideline is intelligent or good.

Rules of nature, rules of physics and chemistry, are rules which cannot be broken. Morals are rules which can be broken if we choose to do so. Rules are a set of boundaries.

Lastly: I refuse to play your game of semantics any longer. Have fun in your imaginary world where human morals are God.

Ah, yes... semantics...... a word that is becoming increasingly familiar to me of late... it is the insult of a person who has nothing left in the quiver, no sufficient counter-rebuttal..... the retort of the pathetic and weak-minded, the fool and the one who is determined not to listen to reason. I detest the word, outside of a very strict context.

[Bob Janova]

Considering we're in an OOC forum here, of course the Moldavi Doctrine was 'fair' – it was within the rules of the game, an IC political construct and it could be brought down by IC political means. I don't want to get deep into an IC discussion about it here for obvious reasons, but it shouldn't be hard to find my opinion on the matter

[Fort Pitt]

Red is forever going to be a weak sphere for alliances unless some big name alliances move there, I only see NPO dominating whether they mean to or not.

[Vilien]

Rules of nature, rules of physics and chemistry, are rules which cannot be broken. Morals are rules which can be broken if we choose to do so. Rules are a set of boundaries.

Francesca, you asserted that morality was an immutable subject, with unalterable laws. You fail to realize that morality is an inherently subjective area, and morals are more of a personal guidebook than any kind of greater social law. Moreover, your continued assertion in the permanence and solidity of moral thought can be easily summed up in the lizard analogy. I know you are not a lizard, despite your claims that my thinking you to be a lizard would make that thought a reality. Primarily, many lizards have flexible tails that would be capable of typing along with the lizard's feet. As such, we can assume that a lizard would have three digits with which to type, should that lizard be posting on an internet forum. We can tell from your forum statistics that you have made roughly 1,300 posts in your two years and twenty two days on these forums. In total, you've spent seven hundred and fifty two days on these forums. You've made roughly 1.72 posts every day. Assuming that a post contains an average of one hundred characters (this has been backed up by modern science), you've typed roughly 172 characters every day that you've visited these forums. Assuming, and I'm being very easy on you here, that you spend only ten minutes posting each day, you'd type 17.2 characters a minute, or in WPM count (words per minute), 3.45 words per minute. The average human being types at 33 words per minute, using eight fingers. A lizard, due to its small size, would almost certainly need to use its entire foot to punch a single key, giving it only three manipulable digits (two feet and a tail, the other two feet would be constrained to the desk). Assuming that a lizard would type at the average rate of a human being, adjusted for its lack of digits, the average lizard would type 4.125 words per minute. Something doesn't add up here, Francesca. By the calculations I have performed before your very eyes, you type an average of 3.45 words per minute, .675 words per minute less than the average lizard. How can we account for this discrepancy? By your own argument, you must be a lizard. Francesca, you are not a lizard. I cannot accept your argument in the immutability of moral standards because you cannot prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are a lizard.

Prove to me that you are a lizard.

[flak attack]

Now there isn't a hegemony which threatens or attacks other alliances which try to implement a no-raiding policy (YN5, Church of Maroon), there's no reason why such enclaves shouldn't be maintained on Red and also elsewhere. You don't need to militarily occupy a colour to make that work.

They would all turn out like Yellow Number 5/Don't Pee in our Snow. Every sphere has tech raiding alliances and it would only stand a chance if put up by a sphere that doesn't tech raid.

[Geoffron X]

The Moldavi Doctrine was just one of the many Pacifican policies, along with EZI

Name one person the New Pacific Order put on EZI. Do it.

[flak attack]

Name one person the New Pacific Order put on EZI. Do it.

Valid d'Impala (sp?)

Doitzel

King Zog

Electron Sponge

Schatt

Is that enough, or shall I name more?

[Bob Janova]

Kingzog ('You'll never get to play Cyber Nations again, after all'). There, that took me 2 seconds. Pretty sure Farung was on there too.

[Raider]

Name one person the New Pacific Order put on EZI. Do it.

Every single member of the Global Alliance and Treaty Organization and Imperial Assualt Alliance that remained in peace mode pass May 3rd during the GATO-1V War.

The Imperial Decree announcing the EZI of all peace mode nations: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=21476

[Ray Matveyev]

Valid d'Impala (sp?)

Doitzel

King Zog

Electron Sponge

Schatt

Is that enough, or shall I name more?

Oh what about New Reverie, (dunno if I'm spelling that right) after he got elected to the Red Senate?

[Valerius]

Name one person the New Pacific Order put on EZI. Do it.

I lol'd.

I'd answer that little challenge of yours but I think I've been sufficiently beaten to it.

[Bird of Passage]

The Bird strolled in.

Oh bloody god, we are arguing of mores?

He chuckled a bit.

Well...since I've nothing better to do...

Fact. Moral. Opinion.

The latter two seem to be confused, here.

An opinion is a personal dictation regarding...anything, really. They are oft stated as if to be fact, whether the speaker intends this or not, but they cannot be right or wrong, because they are statements of what the speaker thinks something should be, or should be thought as such. For example...

"Abortion is the same as murder, and is wrong."

OR

"Abortion is not the same as murder, and is a choice."

OR

"Dead babies are tasty. Moar."

All of these are differing opinions on how something should be (let us assume that the three given speakers are all well-educated and completely serious).

Now, here is where the confusion happens: All of those statements, while opinions, are based on morals. Morals are the personal, ethical guidelines that one's opinions are drawn from (though, opinions may also arise from speculation, where morality is not always necessarily a factor).

With that said, since morals are personal, they cannot be objective, and thus, nor can opinions. They can be imposed on others, though, yes. Morals affect not only opinions, but laws. Laws carry more weight than opinions do (so long as there is someone or something there to enforce them), for they are essentially decrees by officials or rulers of a given body on what can legally be done and what cannot. However, laws, like morals and opinions, can change at any given time, and some can be removed, or added. They are necessary for societies to function, but they are no more objective than morals or opinions for those very reasons. And laws are about as close to objectivity as one can get.

The reason that morals, like opinions, cannot be inherently right or wrong is because there is no clearly-defined ethic (or, "what ought to be"). The reason that there is no clear ethic is because there is no being capable of defining it. Some would argue that God does. I disagree, not just because I am an Atheist, but because such a being would be beyond human comprehension or mental and physical limits. I don't pretend to understand religious practice, but I doubt that any human truly understands whatever God's will is, and I doubt that anyone ever will. In essence, again, there is no clearly-defined ethic; it would be like trying to determine the existence of God itself. Then again, like God's existence, it cannot be proven not to exist. So I suppose moralists will need to pick a set of morals and hope for the best.

Morals may be guiding principles, but they are not objective facts, or necessarily laws either. The fact that some may be shared by many, are compatible with laws, and are imposed with the expectations of others following them does not change this, nor does that occur even when those others conform (Conformity =/= Moral Compatibility) and I am sorry to say that there is nothing that anyone can do about this.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Bird of Passage

[Elendil old]

Every single member of the Global Alliance and Treaty Organization and Imperial Assualt Alliance that remained in peace mode pass May 3rd during the GATO-1V War.

The Imperial Decree announcing the EZI of all peace mode nations: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=21476

It's not Eternal if we stopped it