The end of false morality

[Starfox101]

The goal is freedom from world police, from supposed fake morals. It is not everyone's goal to bully the weak.

[D34th]

The goal is freedom from world police, from supposed fake morals. It is not everyone's goal to bully the weak.

Morality is immoral, I get it

[Starfox101]

Morality is immoral, I get it

We don't need a world police.

[D34th]

We don't need a world police.

We have one?

[OOC]Going to university, we can continue it later [/OOC]

Edited November 30, 2009 by D34th

[White Chocolate]

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.

Assuming alliance C is saying "do what we say or face utter decimation" - yes. I never said that alliance A had an easy choice. I'm also NOT saying I agree with this system...quit the opposite, actually as I'm a rather dedicated moralist. A real one...meaning consistency of belief and that if the cause is one that's important enough to fight for, it's important enough to risk my own destruction.

What I am saying is that if alliance A chooses keeping their infra over whatever cause or reason they decided they wanted to attack alliance B, then that *IS* their choice. In a "might makes right" world (which this still is), that is sometimes the price of freedom.

Edited November 30, 2009 by White Chocolate

[avernite]

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.

Ahh, so if we all just sign oADP's with everyone you're out of business?

Okay, thanks for promoting a growing treaty web, I guess.

[Augustus Autumn]

How exactly do you intend to split "false" and "true" morality? Isn't that going to involve some sort of moral judgment call on your part?

To put it differently:

Who precisely are you and what gives you the authority to make this call outside of "I have nukes/more NS/more people/more treaties than you!"

Or further differently:

What makes your mission any different than that of the evil Pacifica everyone seems to conjure in their nightmares?

[Moridin]

Where is everyone getting the idea that a world morality police exists? And furthermore, where is anyone getting the idea that the solution to this supposed problem is to have a world morality police police? Is the next step to have a watchdog group to keep an eye on Jack Diorno so he doesn't accidentally do something moral?

The notion of that it is somehow okay to declare war on an alliance for no reason but that it is abhorrent and a threat to the freedoms of everyone to declare war on the aggressor in such a conflict is nothing short of ridiculous. The entire premise of this alliance is flawed, which I suppose is, in its own right, somewhat impressive.

[Augustus Autumn]

The entire premise of this alliance is flawed, which I suppose is, in its own right, somewhat impressive.

I'm not, considering the source of this alliance and all the false moral showboating that goes on over there.

[Jack Diorno]

Ahh, so if we all just sign oADP's with everyone you're out of business?

Okay, thanks for promoting a growing treaty web, I guess.

The world will never completely unite that way, there is a limit to how dense the treaty web can become because rivalries will split it apart again. Those rivalries are being quelled by the large alliances using morality as a propaganda tool to criminalize war, so here we are.

How exactly do you intend to split "false" and "true" morality? Isn't that going to involve some sort of moral judgment call on your part?

To put it differently:

Who precisely are you and what gives you the authority to make this call outside of "I have nukes/more NS/more people/more treaties than you!"

Or further differently:

What makes your mission any different than that of the evil Pacifica everyone seems to conjure in their nightmares?

Nobody gives me the authority except myself, it's called freedom, which i what I am promoting, I look for no acceptance by the world powers.

On what is right and wrong, I wrote it into my charter:

Article V: war

Section 1 – Casus Belli

Part a – A state of war will be declared on an offending alliance for any of the following acts of tyranny:

• Intervention – If an alliance is attempting to intervene in a foreign entities affairs where it has no place.

• Hypocrisy – If an alliance is attempting to bring harm to a foreign entity for reasons that are normally condoned by said alliance.

• Opportunism – If an alliance is attempting to bring harm to a foreign entity, using sudden political circumstances providing a disadvantage to said foreign entity, unless a pre-existing publicly known rivalry exists.

[Starfox101]

We have one?

[OOC]Going to university, we can continue it later [/OOC]

We have an aspiring one.

Where is everyone getting the idea that a world morality police exists? And furthermore, where is anyone getting the idea that the solution to this supposed problem is to have a world morality police police? Is the next step to have a watchdog group to keep an eye on Jack Diorno so he doesn't accidentally do something moral?

The notion of that it is somehow okay to declare war on an alliance for no reason but that it is abhorrent and a threat to the freedoms of everyone to declare war on the aggressor in such a conflict is nothing short of ridiculous. The entire premise of this alliance is flawed, which I suppose is, in its own right, somewhat impressive.

We get the idea when we see it in action.

[Augustus Autumn]

Alrighty, point by point.

• Intervention – If an alliance is attempting to intervene in a foreign entities affairs where it has no place.

And who makes that call? You?

• Hypocrisy – If an alliance is attempting to bring harm to a foreign entity for reasons that are normally condoned by said alliance.

Again, you get to make that call?

• Opportunism – If an alliance is attempting to bring harm to a foreign entity, using sudden political circumstances providing a disadvantage to said foreign entity, unless a pre-existing publicly known rivalry exists.

And where does the historical record start? Where you say it does?

Jack, this entire section of your entire charter is written to give yourself some sort of moral high ground to look down on others from while decrying their moral code. You should have attempted to be honest and simply say "I do what I want when I want to!" Then again, the Sith already did that and no one likes a poor imitation.

[Moridin]

We get the idea when we see it in action.

And the solution is to take a stand against morality, clearly! The world would be a better place if you attacked someone for attacking someone for attacking someone, because simply attacking someone for attacking someone is obviously infringing on the aggressor's freedoms whereas if you have three aggressors, the infringing magically cancels out.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Moridin

[Blacky]

Just because you once professed something you did not believe in that does not make it any less credible. I for one have always stood by my own convictions and will continue to do so. Furthermore, being an aggressor already comes with it's advantages there is no reason for us to put our guard down or become aggressors ourselves to exacerbate that. If you go around cutting peoples heads off I'm going to assume my head is next and try to stop you. Deal with it.

[Jack Diorno]

Alrighty, point by point.

And who makes that call? You?

Again, you get to make that call?

And where does the historical record start? Where you say it does?

Yes, I make the calls, it is my alliance after all, who else would make the calls?

Jack, this entire section of your entire charter is written to give yourself some sort of moral high ground to look down on others from while decrying their moral code. You should have attempted to be honest and simply say "I do what I want when I want to!" Then again, the Sith already did that and no one likes a poor imitation.

I do not claim the moral high ground, I do not use my charter and reasoning to justify my actions against those who preach false morality either. This is simply a statement telling you that I exist, what my intentions are, and how you can avoid the wrath of Kap Bambino.

This is no imitation of NSO's Moldavi Doctrine, this would in fact directly oppose the Moldavi Doctrine.

[oinkoink12]

/me quickly hides karma in a cave

[avernite]

The world will never completely unite that way, there is a limit to how dense the treaty web can become because rivalries will split it apart again. Those rivalries are being quelled by the large alliances using morality as a propaganda tool to criminalize war, so here we are.

Ahh, so we just need to write oADP's without non-agression or courtesy parts, so basically:

Article I:

The undersigned have the right, but not the obligation, to help eachother in times of war.

Signed,

the whole planet

Oh wait, actually that's already the case, and you're trying to force us to actually sign that treaty.

[Augustus Autumn]

Yes, I make the calls, it is my alliance after all, who else would make the calls?

My apologies for my lack of clarity - so you get to make grand calls concerning events which don't concern you and your word carries more weight than someone else's... why?

I do not claim the moral high ground, I do not use my charter and reasoning to justify my actions against those who preach false morality either. This is simply a statement telling you that I exist, what my intentions are, and how you can avoid the wrath of Kap Bambino.

Sure you are. You're saying other people's morality is false while yours is not.

This is no imitation of NSO's Moldavi Doctrine, this would in fact directly oppose the Moldavi Doctrine.

I don't see how - the Moldavi Doctrine allows for the Sith to become involved in a conflict where they don't hold a treaty. Your charter allows for you to get involved in a conflict because your morals are offended. Show me the actual difference aside from the piece of electronic paper existing or not?

[Tygaland]

Morality cannot be true until proven false.

[Jgoods45]

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.

In Athens, in regards to our foreign affairs policies, our friends and allies come first. Always. Jack is our friend, always has been and always will be. He needed help, we gave it. I see no mistakes in making this type judgment. Are we enabling him in anyway? Possibly, but not officially. We do not interfere in the internal and foreign affairs departments of our protectorates. They are pretty much allowed to do what they want while remaining cautious. This agreement between our two alliances sets out what we protect him from and what we don't protect him from. Any aggressive war he declares would instantly void this agreement and would not be supported by Athens. He knows this. He understands this. He accepts this. We put a lot of thought into this and I am happy with the final result.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Jgoods45

[Jack Diorno]

Ahh, so we just need to write oADP's without non-agression or courtesy parts, so basically:

Article I:

The undersigned have the right, but not the obligation, to help eachother in times of war.

Signed,

the whole planet

Oh wait, actually that's already the case, and you're trying to force us to actually sign that treaty.

That is a humorous hypothesis on the results of my actions. If the entire world is so afraid of me that they sign a world wide MDP against me, I would surely be put in my place.

My apologies for my lack of clarity - so you get to make grand calls concerning events which don't concern you and your word carries more weight than someone else's... why?

I only make calls for my own actions, I never claimed anything more. I imagine my word carries differing amounts of weight compared to other people, depending on who is listening to what I say and how much they agree with me or whoever opposes me.

Sure you are. You're saying other people's morality is false while yours is not.

People are indeed using false morality for nefarious means, that are resulting in distasteful circumstances in the world today. I once again never claimed my morality wasn't false, I only claimed to defend freedom.

I don't see how - the Moldavi Doctrine allows for the Sith to become involved in a conflict where they don't hold a treaty. Your charter allows for you to get involved in a conflict because your morals are offended. Show me the actual difference aside from the piece of electronic paper existing or not?

My Charter states that if a party should intervene into a world affair in which they have no place, I will declare a state of war with them. So if the moldavi doctrine was enacted, it is very possible they would find themselves at war with me, if the reason for enacting the doctrine conflicted with my Charter.

Other small points come into play, such as my charter only allowing me to declare on the greater power in a conflict, and more restricted reasons for entering a conflict.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Jack Diorno

[Augustus Autumn]

I only make calls for my own actions, I never claimed anything more. I imagine my word carries differing amounts of weight compared to other people, depending on who is listening to what I say and how much they agree with me or whoever opposes me.

This entire section of your charter calls for a subjective judgment call on your part. You can't possible claim "I'm only talking about myself" when the purpose of the section mandates when you're going to get involved in someone else's bees wax.

People are indeed using false morality for nefarious means, that are resulting in distasteful circumstances in the world today. I once again never claimed my morality wasn't false, I only claimed to defend freedom.

You're talking in circles in an attempt to avoid an admission.

My Charter states that if a party should intervene into a world affair in which they have no place, I will declare a state of war with them. So if the moldavi doctrine was enacted, it is very possible they would find themselves at war with me, if the reason for enacting the doctrine conflicted with my Charter.

Just so I got this straight:

Situation 1: Declaring war in defense of someone who you don't hold a treaty with is BAD

Situation 2: Declaring war on someone because you don't think they should be involved in a situation is GOOD

Am I tracking this correctly?

Other small points come into play, such as my charter only allowing me to declare on the greater power in a conflict, and more restricted reasons for entering a conflict.

I'm sorry, where does it say that? Please direct me to the appropriate line. And yes, I checked to see if the OP had been edited - it hasn't been (yet).

[Jack Diorno]

This entire section of your charter calls for a subjective judgment call on your part. You can't possible claim "I'm only talking about myself" when the purpose of the section mandates when you're going to get involved in someone else's bees wax.

Actually I am attempting to stop other people getting involved in someone else's beeswax, if they do so I will come to the defense of whoever's beeswax they are dicking about in.

I will admit that this then leads to me being involved in someone else's beeswax, but there is no other feasible action that can be taken against this surge of large alliances attempting to intervene in smaller alliance's affairs under the guise of a morality campaign.

You're talking in circles in an attempt to avoid an admission.

ok.

Just so I got this straight:

Situation 1: Declaring war in defense of someone who you don't hold a treaty with is BAD

Situation 2: Declaring war on someone because you don't think they should be involved in a situation is GOOD

Am I tracking this correctly?

kap Bambino believes in freedom, the right to act according to ones will. Large alliances attempting to intervene in the affairs of others, where they bear no connection, using their own brand of morality as an excuse to do so is tyranny and directly opposes freedom. I will support alliances acting in their own free will to do whatever they want, it is not my obligation to judge if what they are doing is wrong or right, only to promote the ability for them to make their own choice in the matter, instead of allowing large alliances to decide what they can or cannot do.

It is unfortunate that the large alliances may lose a small part of freedom in throwing their will down on those smaller alliances, but that is the only feasible way to combat this scourge.

I'm sorry, where does it say that? Please direct me to the appropriate line. And yes, I checked to see if the OP had been edited - it hasn't been (yet).

Here:

Article V: war

Section 1 – Casus Belli

Part a – A state of war will be declared on an offending alliance for any of the following acts of tyranny:

• Intervention – If an alliance is attempting to intervene in a foreign entities affairs where it has no place.

• Hypocrisy – If an alliance is attempting to bring harm to a foreign entity for reasons that are normally condoned by said alliance.

• Opportunism – If an alliance is attempting to bring harm to a foreign entity, using sudden political circumstances providing a disadvantage to said foreign entity, unless a pre-existing publicly known rivalry exists.

Part b – A state of war will not be declared, if the offending alliance is considered to be at a military disadvantage.

It is easy to miss there all alone, I may try make it more prominent.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Jack Diorno

[Augustus Autumn]

Actually I am attempting to stop other people getting involved in someone else's beeswax, if they do so I will come to the defense of whoever's beeswax they are dicking about in.

I will admit that this then leads to me being involved in someone else's beeswax, but there is no other feasible action that can be taken against this surge of large alliances attempting to intervene in smaller alliance's affairs under the guise of a morality campaign.

So when someone else intervenes it's bad, but when you do it then it's ok. Hypocrisy can be a lot of fun, you know.

kap Bambino believes in freedom, the right to act according to ones will. Large alliances attempting to intervene in the affairs of others, where they bear no connection, using their own brand of morality as an excuse to do so is tyranny and directly opposes freedom. I will support alliances acting in their own free will to do whatever they want, it is not my obligation to judge if what they are doing is wrong or right, only to promote the ability for them to make their own choice in the matter, instead of allowing large alliances to decide what they can or cannot do.

It is unfortunate that the large alliances may lose a small part of freedom in throwing their will down on those smaller alliances, but that is the only feasible way to combat this scourge.

So because an alliance is small and/or doesn't hold a moral code then it's ok whereas if an alliance is large and/or holds a code then it's a bad thing? I'm really not following this one and I don't think you addressed what I was saying at all. Can you rephrase your answer, please?

Here:

It is easy to miss there all alone, I may try make it more prominent.

I laughed at my own oversight, I'll admit it. I stand corrected.

Jack, I don't really get what you're going for here unless it's an attempt at Vox Populi 3.0 (which, if that's the case, for the love of Admin please don't do this). You want to fight the system, cool, go fight the system but I think your manifesto needs some polish and refinement here.

[Tequila Mockingbird]

In a world filled with neo-moralists, pseudo-moralists and moralistic revolutionaries; like a shining beacon of light into a dark cold sea, one man shows us that no matter what sub-group you belong to you're still a roger.