Jump to content

The end of false morality


Jack Diorno

Recommended Posts

You are close, my logic is that every alliance should be able to do what they want within their own moral parameters, as long as they are not forcing those morals upon other alliances, or trying to make another alliance submit to the same moral parameters they uphold, because that is taking away freedom.

I was under the impression that morals can not be forced on someone, that people must willingly accept their own morals.

Can I ask how you force morals on someone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I was under the impression that morals can not be forced on someone, that people must willingly accept their own morals.

Can I ask how you force morals on someone?

To give an example, their are two small alliances, Alliance A and Alliance B.

Alliance A wants to go to war with alliance B, for whatever reason, but cannot because an unrelated party, Alliance C, who hold no treaties with either alliance A or B is intervening and saying they will not allow the war to proceed as it is immoral.

This, is forcing Alliance A to conform to the morality of Alliance C, they are no longer free to do as they please and have no choice in the matter due to their weaker political and military standing. This intervention is forcing morals they are unwanted on Alliance A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To give an example, their are two small alliances, Alliance A and Alliance B.

Alliance A wants to go to war with alliance B, for whatever reason, but cannot because an unrelated party, Alliance C, who hold no treaties with either alliance A or B is intervening and saying they will not allow the war to proceed as it is immoral.

This, is forcing Alliance A to conform to the morality of Alliance C, they are no longer free to do as they please and have no choice in the matter due to their weaker political and military standing. This intervention is forcing morals they are unwanted on Alliance A.

Alliance A can go to war with alliance B anyway. Alliance C's leadership can say it's immoral or not all they want. If alliance A decides NOT to attack alliance B as a result of alliance C's opinion (including a threat to war over the action), that is still alliance A's decision - not alliance C.

We are all free to do what we want - period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish you luck in your quest, but I am a little worried about article 5 section 1a.

Won't that pretty much ensure a you are in a perpetual war if you declare on any alliance that has these attributes?

There is almost always an alliance somewhere that is doing at least one of them things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are protecting him out of friendship. Nothing more, nothing less. I would do almost anything for Jack. He has helped me a lot during his time in Athens and I am forever grateful for it . I see where you are coming from and I somewhat agree, but I :wub: my Jack, he asked for protection from unprovoked attacks, and I gave it. It may be a dumb move, but I thought it was necessary seeing some of the comments in this thread and not to mention the three spy attacks already made upon his nation. :P

Then you are letting your friendship cloud your judgement. Whats more you are helping develop a trend that is getting more and more difficult to ignore. You guys keep acting first and then thinking later. I think it is unfortunate that you will likely not incur more immediate damage (political or actual) from this decision, because you guys need some stimulus to wake you and prevent you from making these kinds of mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To give an example, their are two small alliances, Alliance A and Alliance B.

Alliance A wants to go to war with alliance B, for whatever reason, but cannot because an unrelated party, Alliance C, who hold no treaties with either alliance A or B is intervening and saying they will not allow the war to proceed as it is immoral.

This, is forcing Alliance A to conform to the morality of Alliance C, they are no longer free to do as they please and have no choice in the matter due to their weaker political and military standing. This intervention is forcing morals they are unwanted on Alliance A.

Alliance A can stand by it's morals through thick and thin and go to war either way. Should alliance C attack alliance A for this reason it will be no worse then what Alliance A did by going to war with alliance B for whatever reason.

If you see Alliance C as an offender, then you must see Alliance A as an offender as well, as they went to war with Alliance B and Alliance B is now forced to be in a war against it's wishs as in your example alliance B doesn't really want a war. Alliance C at least informed Alliance A that they would go in and gave A a chance to reconsider how strongly they felt about their war with B.

But clearly morals have not been forced on anyone. A is still free to do what it wants, simply because they choose to back down doesn't make it that morals have been forced on them, but rather accepted, or more likely A didn't feel strongly about the war enough to risk their infra.

Edit: Or I could put it as simply as White Chocolate did and make it easy on everyone :/

Edited by Khyber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As great as this sounds, the freedom the relieving the repressed, its all going to be a bit hard as usually the person who comes to un oppress over time becomes the oppressor. And one you establish this you will know you can never get rid of power. If your alliance becomes overly strong what will happen is you will use your power to force people not to fight or help there friends.

You only have to look at the world we live in today.

We westerners went to stop communism but what are they doing now, forcing every one to be capitalist with them and sanctioning those who do not follow the same belief as us. As i said you go in as the saviour and become the oppressor your self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alliance A can go to war with alliance B anyway. Alliance C's leadership can say it's immoral or not all they want. If alliance A decides NOT to attack alliance B as a result of alliance C's opinion (including a threat to war over the action), that is still alliance A's decision - not alliance C.

We are all free to do what we want - period.

Alliance C forced the hand of Alliance A, they had to choose between utter decimation or living by the moral standards of Alliance C. Most Alliances in Alliance A's position would simply remain at peace instead of committing suicide.

Alliance A can stand by it's morals through thick and thin and go to war either way. Should alliance C attack alliance A for this reason it will be no worse then what Alliance A did by going to war with alliance B for whatever reason.

It doesn't matter which alliance is right or wrong, only that alliance C is trying to force its moral viewpoint on alliance A.

If you see Alliance C as an offender, then you must see Alliance A as an offender as well, as they went to war with Alliance B and Alliance B is now forced to be in a war against it's wishs as in your example alliance B doesn't really want a war. Alliance C at least informed Alliance A that they would go in and gave A a chance to reconsider how strongly they felt about their war with B.

Alliance A is surely an offender, but they did not use morality as an excuse to begin the war, as such Kap bambino is not opposed to them, this is all that matters.

But clearly morals have not been forced on anyone. A is still free to do what it wants, simply because they choose to back down doesn't make it that morals have been forced on them, but rather accepted, or more likely A didn't feel strongly about the war enough to risk their infra.

Alliance A was stifled by Alliance C and their aggressive preaching of morality, it is not up to Alliance A to become a smoking crater in the ground because their freedom was taken away by Alliance C.

Edited by Jack Diorno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fun thing is that jack diorno is attempting to force his lack of morals (his own moral code) on people through military action in order to prevent people from forcing their moral codes on other people.

No, I am promoting freedom. The morality is dependent on the actions of the alliance I end up fighting for, which I personally will not pass judgment upon, as that is what I am fighting against.

Edited by Jack Diorno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Past:

Darn those immoralists! They should not be able to do whatever they want just because they are in power. Let's rise up and defeat them!

The Present:

Darn those neomoralists! They should not be able to tell us that we can't do whatever we want just because they are in power. Let's rise up and defeat them!

The Future:

Darn those antineomoralists! They should not be able to tell us that we can't hold to a set of moral standards just because they are in power. Let's rise up and defeat them!

In case you're wondering, round three is where I would have to start whining myself.

Edited by Penguin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Past:

Darn those immoralists! They should not be able to do whatever they want just because they are in power. Let's rise up and defeat them!

The Present:

Darn those neomoralists! They should not be able to tell us that we can't do whatever we want just because they are in power. Let's rise up and defeat them!

The Future:

Darn those antineomoralists! They should not be able to tell us that we can't hold to a set of moral standards just because they are in power. Let's rise up and defeat them!

In case you're wondering, round three is where I would have to start whining myself.

It's what keeps them coming back. At least this is more interactive than television.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a dream!

Also, how would this apply to alliances under protection from others? If any outside force should be able to influence another alliance, it should be that alliance's protector. I don't mean in the sense that the protector should be able to control the protectee's morality, but shouldn't their influence be some factor?

Edited by Chrysocyon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, I understand what you're trying to do, however I believe you are using the wrong words to promote your ideals, morality and freedom are very subjective terms, and there should be no room for interpretation.

I recommend that you base your actions upon principle, if you break it in one way, then the point of your principle is lost. You will probably have to specify more clearly what it is you intend to do. Why? Because all too often you have a coin with two sides, and both sides are right, both sides are wrong. If you have principles to base your decisions on, you don't need to make judgment calls on the "freedom" you wish to protect.

I would also suggest amending; "Kap Bambino will not sign any form of binding treaty with a foreign entity.". For your treaties I believe it would be efficiant to form a community of alliances that support your ideal, as long as they abide by the same ideal. They should double check each other to make sure none of them are abusing their power. (I am not suggesting mutual defense) It wouldn't be hard for you and your alliance to abuse the very principles you wish to stand upon.

"Kap Bambino will never request reparations from a legitimate offensive or defensive war."

Reparations are a legitimate form of compensation, if you have been wronged, to avoid war an opposing position may very well wish to offer reparations. Unless your intention is to ignore those who have wronged you and ask for forgiveness in which case you should add a clause in your charter that accounts for that.

Good luck, and have fun stirring the pot ^_^

Edited by Fireblade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a dream!

Also, how would this apply to alliances under protection from others? If any outside force should be able to influence another alliance, it should be that alliance's protector. I don't mean in the sense that the protector should be able to control the protectee's morality, but shouldn't their influence be some factor?

I am only opposing the alliances that choose to interfere with the affairs of another alliance who is completely untied to them. A proctectee has by choice entered an agreement with their protector and should act accordingly.

Jack, I understand what you're trying to do, however I believe you are using the wrong words to promote your ideals, morality and freedom are very subjective terms, and there should be no room for interpretation.

I recommend that you base your actions upon principle, if you break it in one way, then the point of your principle is lost. You will probably have to specify more clearly what it is you intend to do. Why? Because all too often you have a coin with two sides, and both sides are right, both sides are wrong. If you have principles to base your decisions on, you don't need to make judgment calls on the "freedom" you wish to protect.

I specified my intentions as clear as I could, if you have any ideas on improving on what I have written then feel free to PM me or talk to me in #kap, I am always willing to listen to suggestions, this sounds beneficial.

I would also suggest amending; "Kap Bambino will not sign any form of binding treaty with a foreign entity.". For your treaties I believe it would be efficiant to form a community of alliances that support your ideal, as long as they abide by the same ideal. They should double check each other to make sure none of them are abusing their power. (I am not suggesting mutual defense) It wouldn't be hard for you and your alliance to abuse the very principles you wish to stand upon.

I also feel I will change the treaty option of my charter, as several alliances have mentioned the attractive prospect of lending their strength for my cause, which could swerve my cause from a reckless death in nuclear flames into a fully fledged anti-moralist movement. I am undecided though, as treaties are generally the highest cause of stagnation, I certainly would not promote my alliance signing standard treaties that apply to the world today.

I am going to have to give it full thought before making the decision.

"Kap Bambino will never request reparations from a legitimate offensive or defensive war."

Reparations are a legitimate form of compensation, if you have been wronged, to avoid war an opposing position may very well wish to offer reparations. Unless your intention is to ignore those who have wronged you and ask for forgiveness in which case you should add a clause in your charter that accounts for that.

Good luck, and have fun stirring the pot ^_^

If an alliance has a legitimate reason to declare war on me and by miracle I defeat them, I would take happiness in the victory itself, not the spoils of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I stand before you, as the leader of ‘Kap Bambino’, a new alliance with the goal of using military force to secure freedom for everyone, to stand against the loathsome and false morality that is being preached in every direction I look, and to rid this world of tyrannical oppression and heavy stagnation.

We live in a world ruled by tyranny. Any alliance that attempts to bring war to her enemies has to face the screeching hordes of interventionist alliances threatening retribution in the name of false morality. This intervention by uninvolved parties into matters that do not concern them is nothing but power abuse. I can no longer stand by while large alliances use their strength and political might to force undue restrictions on smaller alliances.

What type of freedom? Freedom of raid 39 men alliances without consequences?

All I can read is: I want a world where I can bully those weaker than me without worry about those who are stronger than me. Actually I can't do it and I don't think it's funny. Bawwwww

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an alliance has a legitimate reason to declare war on me and by miracle I defeat them, I would take happiness in the victory itself, not the spoils of war.

Not exactly what I meant... I see reparations as a means of preventing an all out war, or as a means of righting wrongs done. After a full alliance war is declared and finished, reparations seem quite trivial.

Edited by Fireblade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...