Lend me a Hand, Neo-Moralists

[F15pilotX]

You didn't even begin to respond to my post, though if your assertion was that soft power is somehow a tool of the weak, then you have a rather one dimensional view of politics. There's not much else worth rebutting.

I believe the point he was trying to make is that Vox were not the ones that physically took down the NPO, not that the way Vox went about trying to accomplish this was weak.

Then again, I could be mistaken.

[astronaut jones]

Okay then substitute a random raiding alliance that you could careless about. Would you not consider it retribution for their past deeds? How many alliances has PC raided?

I'm very consistent on this, you got my answer already, that goes for any alliance that is blatantly raided in an opportunistic fashion, or raided in a moment of weakness.

Ask PC how many alliances they raided, I don't know, and I don't care.

[astronaut jones]

I don't think so, times have moved on a bit from "your" PC of old.

which is unfortunate, because for all the bad !@#$ that I may have done, I at least kept people in line, and made sure that stupid !@#$ like the FoA raid either didn't happen, or if it did happen, that things changed because of it.

Looks like the lot of you dropped the !@#$@#$ ball a long time ago.

edit: There's something that would help you guys rectify pretty much every single one of your problems, and it's called personal accountability. You have none, I made sure you had it while I was there, once I left it looks like no one picked up the slack. You can do all that you want to do, you can raid however you want to raid without people getting on your case about it, if you had a little bit of personal accountability for your actions. You guys are better, I made SURE you were better, than the scum $%&@s you hang around with right now.

You guys need to smarten the $%&@ up, and quick.

Edited January 19, 2010 by astronaut jones

[Dochartaigh]

Yet these non-moralist still stand today? What blasphemy! Last I checked when I set out to obliterate something, I finished them off. These moralist are a joke, they have no actual intent on doing anything. They just love to strut their muscles at the sign of anything that they can to gain a PR raise out of. If they actually believed they could rid the world of non-moralistic ways, don't you think they'd have done it by now? Please, will someone call them on their bluff.

yes, cuz you clearly are in tune with moralism and moralists. you have no clue what is wanted from our side. honestly, i think the Karma war has shown that if you push moralists too far, they will rise up. though i love all the strutting that anti-moralists like you do. all the crying that is associated with your PR attempts. your side is quite an oxymoron since it seems to consist of crying while attempting to act like tough guys.

Only by your standards is it wrong. Once again all things are good and evil. One just happens to be more or less of the two from different view points. To state someone is wrong without embracing their culture from a nutural standpoint shows your ignorance.

where is your neutral standpoint? oh wait, you are showing your ignorance even according to your own opinion. and you wonder why anti-moralism is considered a joke more so than ya'll consider moralism to be a joke?

We aren't advocating cannabalism, we are advocating the right of alliances to state their intentions truthfully, and guide their alliance as they see fit.

and it seems the moralists wish to guide their alliances and nations as they see fit and to state their intentions truthfully.

if you guys love war so much, i don't understand why you pick on someone so much weaker than you? thus, your intentions are not stated truthfully in the least. you wish to be able to attack those weaker than you who cannot actually defend themselves properly against you. you are cowards plain and simple otherwise you would go to war 1v1 against an alliance like FoA. i mean, 3 alliances vs FoA. sheesh, ya'll are quite the losers couldn't even take on an alliance that size 1v1. awesome tough guys you are.

i would say that image fits ya'll completely.

I never once said being a non-raiding nation was wrong. I said enforcing your beliefs upon an alliance because you don't agree with their moral values is wrong.

You say cannalbalism is wrong yet animals eat their falling comrades not because the dislike them, but because it'd be a waste to not endulge in them. From my knowledge animals are far more civil than any human.

and yet you are attempting to enforce your beliefs on us... we are all just supposed to accept you are somehow right and shut up about it? see, this is the paradox of such arguments. you cannot claim that we are wrong for attempting to enforce our beliefs on you while you attempt to enforce your beliefs on us.

also, hizzy is correct, the whole animals are far more civil than humans is just completely lulzy. dogs eat their own crap. you are saying that you would eat your own crap?

Vilien my only question too you is where would you stand had this been an alliance that allows tech raiding themselves? I've come to a conclusion on this matter they may help settle future disagreements.

It's immoral to raid an alliance that does not raid in their time of weakness, such as this current situation.

It should how ever not be considered immoral to raid an alliance that does endulge in raiding during that alliances time of weakness.

Would any moralist be willing to accept this statement?

your ignorance is showing again. i am a moralist and a raider. i tech raid unaligned with a stricter standard that even IAA uses. i do not find it the least bit acceptable to coordinate a mass tech raid on an alliance regardless of that alliance's standing.

and yes, it is immoral to tech raid an alliance regardless of whether they raid or not. unless of course you tech raid an alliance that makes a habit of tech raiding alliances. i do believe in an eye for an eye. and no, i do not believe it would make the world go blind.

Yes, I am lumping all tech raiders together because any true moralist would consider the raiding of one nation just as sinfull as the raiding of thirty. Also any true raiding alliance knows the importance of having allies. Therefore you shouldn't be worried. My objective is to remove this topic from ever reappearing because Bob can't come to an agreement as to what should and should not be considered immoral.

Edit: Your mad that I'm now looking for a solution rather than a war? Yes, personal agendas do change.

no moralist would lump all tech raiders together since everything has different levels of being good or bad. someone who helps an old lady cross a street did good but is not the hero that someone who rescued an old lady from a burning house would be considered. just as someone who steals some food cuz they are hungry is not lumped together with someone who robs hundreds of thousands from a bank.

and of course any true raiding alliance knows the importance of allies otherwise they would have been crushed by now. ya'll talk a tough game but then hide behind your allies the moment anything happens that could bring war to ya'lls doorstep. quite lulzy considering you guys keep saying how you love war...

[Atanatar]

Doch, you're confusing our desire for war with our desire to tech raid. They are not the same thing. In this case we wished to tech raid. If we had wished an alliance war, we would have posted a formal declaration, posted individual surrender terms, and enforced reps. Odd. I somehow think if we had done that to even a similar sized or larger sized alliance, you would still be condemning us and calling us bullies.

[LordNettles]

Internet games are srsy bizness.

[Dochartaigh]

Doch, you're confusing our desire for war with our desire to tech raid. They are not the same thing. In this case we wished to tech raid. If we had wished an alliance war, we would have posted a formal declaration, posted individual surrender terms, and enforced reps. Odd. I somehow think if we had done that to even a similar sized or larger sized alliance, you would still be condemning us and calling us bullies.

well then you may want to explain that to Starfox. as much as i like Starfox and what not, it seems that he is quite confused as he took our objection to this tech raid as being anti-war. as it seems many on your side have taken it. so if our objection to this tech raid on FoA is somehow an anti-war sentiment, then it was not a tech raid like you state, it was a war.

but if it was not a war, then it was a tech raid and your side needs to stop confusing us as being anti-war then but instead realize that we are simply anti-raiding of an alliance.

so it is not my confusion in the least but your side that is doing all the confusing and you should talk to them, not me about confusing this issue.

if \m/ had hit IAA for example (we have like 50 or so more members than \m/ and around 600k more NS), i would hardly have called you bullies. especially if you had wanted to duel for a week and then be done with the war. (used IAA as i know our stats and checked on \m/ to see who is near them in NS and size.)

so, if \m/ wants to duel an alliance and the other alliance is okay with it, then i see no issue whatsoever actually. i would hardly have condemned \m/ if \m/ had hit FoA and FoA had said it was okay beforehand.

the issue i have is that it was not just \m/ involved but also PC and GOONS and FoA knew nothing of the attack prior to being hit. that is being a bully and a coward.

[hizzy]

Internet games are srsy bizness.

Old memes are rtrdd. Get a clue.

[White Chocolate]

What is the problem with a short battle without any ending terms?

Nothing. I wish more battles would end without any terms.

What is the problem with alliances starting an aggressive war?

Nothing, as long as it's a WAR and not a "tech raid" and treated as such by the alliance starting the war against the other ALLIANCE.

The issue I have is when groups "tech raid" (as if it isn't a war) another alliance and don't even give them the basic respect of calling it a REAL war and the basic respect of a Declaration of War. So now, not ONLY are non-aligned NOT citizens of Planet Bob worthy of basic respect, alliances that don't have treaties are as well???

Here is a copy of a conversation I just had with one of our new people. I think it was great timing considering recent events. These are exact words.

His question: why do i need to have tanks if we are neutral alliance?

My answer: Because even though we are defensive only, there are lots of people out in the cyber-universe that don't care...Also, we're defensive, but we have allies and it's possible that at some point we may consider defending them if the situation should arise. So I usually tell people we're not "neutral" but just picky about what allies we have.

White Chocolate

As far as world peace goes, isn't that the goal that any civilized society should be striving for?

Edited January 19, 2010 by White Chocolate

[zzzptm]

The whole thing disgusts me. I'm not going to preach to try and get the attackers to change their mind, because it won't work. I just expected better from you, Starfox. Shame.

[Tautology]

Finally someone has had the honesty to come out and admit that preaching - whether for moral rectitude or personal gain - is at the heart of this thread.

I salute you.

[Tick1]

also, hizzy is correct, the whole animals are far more civil than humans is just completely lulzy. dogs eat their own crap. you are saying that you would eat your own crap?

Warning OOC:

Consider the view of the African jungle give by Victorian hunters. The Hunter assumed that every creature he met would attack him and accordingly shot it on sight. Of course he didn't want to eat it, but he could always stuff it (in order to triumph over his human enemies) and and anyway he assumed it was noxious; it would ever be discribed in his memoirs as "the great brute"

Gorillas in particular are peace-loving beasts; George Schaller visited a tribe of them for six months without receiving so much as a cross word or seeing any quarrel worth naming. In this case, and no doubt in others, Victorian men were deceived by confusing threatening behavior with attack. Gorillas do threaten, but the point is precisely to avoid combat. By looking sufficiently dreadful the patriarch can drive off intruders and defend his family without actually fighting.

Yes, animals live in such chaotic states. Humans are definitely not vicious creatures.

FYI: I'll respond to the rest within the hour.

[hizzy]

The whole thing disgusts me. I'm not going to preach to try and get the attackers to change their mind, because it won't work. I just expected better from you, Starfox. Shame.

I dunno man. I think something got through to them. They've started going into peace mode, which is an obvious sign that they won't be raiding anything.

[Vilien]

I've made a new signature for \m/embers only.

[Bilrow]

I dunno man. I think something got through to them. They've started going into peace mode, which is an obvious sign that they won't be raiding anything.

They can't handle the same they give out.

Karma is a !@#$%*.

[zzzptm]

Perhaps it was cold hard facts and logic?

I hate how cold hard facts and logic play hob with my knuckles..

[WarriorConcept]

Karma is a !@#$%*.

Oh the irony.

[The Big Bad]

This is clearly a new raiding tactic, raid alliance, talk smack, hide in peace mode. Not sure that is a good way to get tech. That has to be why, else they would just be running away from getting tech raided themselves and that would just be pathetic.

[Bob Janova]

Weak, \m/.

[Tick1]

yes, cuz you clearly are in tune with moralism and moralists. you have no clue what is wanted from our side. honestly, i think the Karma war has shown that if you push moralists too far, they will rise up. though i love all the strutting that anti-moralists like you do. all the crying that is associated with your PR attempts. your side is quite an oxymoron since it seems to consist of crying while attempting to act like tough guys.

What the Karma war has shown me is that even tech raiders and so called "Moralist," can work together in the attempt to rid the world of one of the greatest empires that planet bob has ever seen. If you actually take a look at the alliances on the Karma side they didn't band together because they like each other, only because they dislike Hegemony. If you have a different viewpoint I'd love to hear it, because what I see post Karma is a bunch of people in a race for dominance, not cooperation. Which is why we are having these standoffs at this very moment. I fought alongside Karma to help remove Hegemony from power, not because I thought it was right, but because I disliked them.

where is your neutral standpoint? oh wait, you are showing your ignorance even according to your own opinion. and you wonder why anti-moralism is considered a joke more so than ya'll consider moralism to be a joke?

Where is my neutral standpoint, is a good question. Seeing as I spent time in neutral alliances I'd imagine that the time spent within them would have given me some incite on actual good people. There viewpoints are far closer to true divine morals then you claim to have obtained yourself.

and it seems the moralists wish to guide their alliances and nations as they see fit and to state their intentions truthfully.

Do you really believe that? How out of touch with politics are you? The truth being every bloc/alliance hides their true intentions within our very planet. If you think you have the scoop on what C&G, SF & Cit, please inform me because I'd love to know.

and yet you are attempting to enforce your beliefs on us... we are all just supposed to accept you are somehow right and shut up about it? see, this is the paradox of such arguments. you cannot claim that we are wrong for attempting to enforce our beliefs on you while you attempt to enforce your beliefs on us.

Actually if you would have read every post I've made in this thread you'd have noticed that I did point out that raiders have pushed our morals onto the alliances we've raided. Which is why I proposed a solution to our dilemma, but I guess you missed that section.

your ignorance is showing again. i am a moralist and a raider. i tech raid unaligned with a stricter standard that even IAA uses. i do not find it the least bit acceptable to coordinate a mass tech raid on an alliance regardless of that alliance's standing.

My ignorance is showing? Once again this is an area where I don't see eye to eye with you. If you really believe raiding an unaligned nation is sin free then I most ask where you brought up this thought process. I will state my true opinion seeing as it is what I believe if you disagree with it so be it. I don't see the difference in numbers and I will fail to see this for the rest of my life, because you don't need to raid unaligned nations to continue existing, just like I don't need to raid to continue existing, but we both however are stealing from nations that can't fend for themselves or do anything to stop it.

and yes, it is immoral to tech raid an alliance regardless of whether they raid or not. unless of course you tech raid an alliance that makes a habit of tech raiding alliances. i do believe in an eye for an eye. and no, i do not believe it would make the world go blind.

no moralist would lump all tech raiders together since everything has different levels of being good or bad. someone who helps an old lady cross a street did good but is not the hero that someone who rescued an old lady from a burning house would be considered. just as someone who steals some food cuz they are hungry is not lumped together with someone who robs hundreds of thousands from a bank.

and of course any true raiding alliance knows the importance of allies otherwise they would have been crushed by now. ya'll talk a tough game but then hide behind your allies the moment anything happens that could bring war to ya'lls doorstep. quite lulzy considering you guys keep saying how you love war...

Which is why I'm lumping all of these alliances together. If all raiding alliance understand the value of an ally why would we go without one? If we wont raid alliances with allies then what does any raiding alliance have to fear? If every unaligned alliance is a non-raiding alliance they also have nothing to fear, but since you fail to see that I guess I'll just keep my mouth shut on the previous idea I had. Since it would have actually kept raiding larger alliances to a minimum.

[ChairmanHal]

Let me see, I have a few different grading charts from various lands.

GPA - A+

TDO - A-

WTF - B+

NpO - B

IRON - AAA+

\m/ - Check your war slots, you've been declared on.

Call us the National Guard at Kent State.

You know that it's entirely possible that some people don't give a flying duck who you are attacking or why and they have bigger fish to fry....

[Godwin]

You know that it's entirely possible that some people don't give a flying duck who you are attacking or why and they have bigger fish to fry....

As most people should. But for some reason people ARE caring, those moralist ****s, and that's why there's an issue. People meddling in other people's war.

Not that I'm complaining, because I welcome a large war with open arms, but the excuses for it are really lame. If you're going to pry into the business of others because you want to, say that instead of saying "Oh but its for teh moralz!!!1"

[White Chocolate]

It is quite simple to understand the psyche of a moralist. Lacking the power, the political ability or the determination to do something themselves, they loudly and as often as possible bombard everyone around them with their own moralist viewpoint, in an attempt to sway public opinion away from their adversaries. They aim to demonize the non-moralists to the point where even those that do not share their moralist views still see the non-moralists as a cancer that must be removed, as something that is ruining the environment and denying others enjoyment and opportunity. In this way it allows others to play the role of white knight, thus achieving the moralist's aims without exposing the moralist to any real danger, and costing them nothing but time. Moralism is the ideology of the weak.

That's it, exactly. Happy?

[Dochartaigh]

Warning OOC:

Consider the view of the African jungle give by Victorian hunters. The Hunter assumed that every creature he met would attack him and accordingly shot it on sight. Of course he didn't want to eat it, but he could always stuff it (in order to triumph over his human enemies) and and anyway he assumed it was noxious; it would ever be discribed in his memoirs as "the great brute"

Gorillas in particular are peace-loving beasts; George Schaller visited a tribe of them for six months without receiving so much as a cross word or seeing any quarrel worth naming. In this case, and no doubt in others, Victorian men were deceived by confusing threatening behavior with attack. Gorillas do threaten, but the point is precisely to avoid combat. By looking sufficiently dreadful the patriarch can drive off intruders and defend his family without actually fighting.

Yes, animals live in such chaotic states. Humans are definitely not vicious creatures.

FYI: I'll respond to the rest within the hour.

OOC: while this is true, you assume that gorillas would not attack or defend. fact is, the intruder could very well still attack and the gorilla patriarch must either defend or flee.

humans do the same thing as well. we build up our military in order to show the other nations that we are not someone to mess with. it is exactly the same thing. we make ourselves sufficiently scary looking that we are not invaded by anyone.

IC: Nations of Planet Bob do exactly the same thing. they build themselves up to look threatening to any would be attacker. while most unfortunately do not know how to do this properly, the intent is still there.

[Tick1]

OOC: while this is true, you assume that gorillas would not attack or defend. fact is, the intruder could very well still attack and the gorilla patriarch must either defend or flee.

humans do the same thing as well. we build up our military in order to show the other nations that we are not someone to mess with. it is exactly the same thing. we make ourselves sufficiently scary looking that we are not invaded by anyone.

IC: Nations of Planet Bob do exactly the same thing. they build themselves up to look threatening to any would be attacker. while most unfortunately do not know how to do this properly, the intent is still there.

OOC: You comparison is completely different considering the fact that the military weapons we produce could in fact actually bring upon the destruction of mankind as we know it.

IC: While nations and alliance such as NpO do maintain the same instincts as Gorilla's I highly doubt they will do anything if someone deplores their views. If you'd like my actual opinion on this matter you can send me a PM as I will not post my true opinion and reasoning behind this.