deSouza Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 The Cult of Justitia does not allow techraiding, and we are, to the man, firmly opposed to it. Nor does the Cult impose its values upon any other alliance by "diplomacy" or arms. We most certainly do not support the imposition of a moral code upon alliances as Polaris seeks to do. So, essentially you write, try to form opinions and expect others to act on it? Is it not the very "moral imperialism" you accuse polar of partaking on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Put this under a masthead and print it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke426 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) So, essentially you write, try to form opinions and expect others to act on it?Is it not the very "moral imperialism" you accuse polar of partaking on? No, he's not attacking or otherwise punishing anyone for not heeding his words. "Imperialism," by definition, requires that influence or power be used for coercion. Edited January 21, 2010 by Locke426 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 So, essentially you write, try to form opinions and expect others to act on it?Is it not the very "moral imperialism" you accuse polar of partaking on? If you saw a call to action in my statement, it's only your nerdrage that inserted it. The words certainly aren't there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 No, he's not attacking or otherwise punishing anyone for not heeding his words Words can be (and are on this case) punishment too, you know. The pen is mightier than the sword. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 If you saw a call to action in my statement, it's only your nerdrage that inserted it. The words certainly aren't there. My nerdrage does not differ "wrong" from "do something about it", and on the long term, noone's nerdrage does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jackson Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Words can be (and are on this case) punishment too, you know.The pen is mightier than the sword. Never mind that you weren't the author, I guess you know what it means better than he does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke426 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Words can be (and are on this case) punishment too, you know.The pen is mightier than the sword. Weak. Nothing Schatt said could possibly interpreted as 'punishment' to anyone in Polaris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Never mind that you weren't the author, I guess you know what it means better than he does. He is saying that he enlightened the masses concerning the evil deeds of NPO, while there was a massive reaction concerning the community towards those deeds, and (he made sure to mention that) that NpO's actions are comparable to NPO's actions. It is implied that he expects a reaction, wether he likes to admit it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke426 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) He is saying that he enlightened the masses concerning the evil deeds of NPO, while there was a massive reaction concerning the community towards those deeds, and (he made sure to mention that) that NpO's actions are comparable to NPO's actions.It is implied that he expects a reaction, wether he likes to admit it or not. Of course he expects a reaction. What does that have to with punishment or moral imperialism? Edit: punctuation Edited January 21, 2010 by Locke426 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Weak. Nothing Schatt said could possibly interpreted as 'punishment' to anyone in Polaris. His entire post is directed in response to tonight's DoW, and yes, it can be seen as punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Why didn't NpO have a moral crusade in 2009, I wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jackson Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) He is saying that he enlightened the masses concerning the evil deeds of NPO, while there was a massive reaction concerning the community towards those deeds, and (he made sure to mention that) that NpO's actions are comparable to NPO's actions.It is implied that he expects a reaction, wether he likes to admit it or not. I didn't see him threatening some sort of action for those who choose not to listen to it. The final decision is ultimately left to the reader. If they decide to act, then good for them. If they don't? Well that's good for them as well. You're reaching for something that simply is not there. EDIT: Punctuation fail. Edited January 21, 2010 by Thomas Jackson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bones Malone Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Schatt, I normally agree with you. You are very much well informed and well researched. However, I have to say that I completely support Polaris precisely because of their stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Of course he expects a reaction. What does that have to with punishment or moral imperialism. "Imperialism," by definition, requires that influence or power be used for coercion. You answered your own question. Schatt is using his influence to attempt to coerce NpO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jackson Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 His entire post is directed in response to tonight's DoW, and yes, it can be seen as punishment. So reading something is a form of punishment? In that case then the DoW issued was enough punishment for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke426 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 You answered your own question.Schatt is using his influence to attempt to coerce NpO. Coerce them into what? Using a "takeback" on the DoW? I doubt Schatt is disillusioned enough to think that he's going to take control of Polaris with this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I didn't see him threatening some sort of action for those who choose not to listen to it. The final decision is ultimately left to the reader. If they decide to act, then good for them. If they don't? Well that's good for them as well. You're reaching for something that simply is not there.EDIT: Punctuation fail. When an emperor of an alliance issues an order, the final decision is left ultimately to the rulers. Even if he/she punishes those who disobey, its still a choice everyone has to make at all times. Of course disobeying has consequences, as well as going against what is perceived to be the consensus of right has consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Coerce them into what? Using a "takeback" on the DoW? I doubt Schatt is disillusioned enough to think that he's going to take control of Polaris with this thread. They key difference between schatt's method and Grub's method is that grub's method is faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 If TWiP was your best work, this is probably the worst. Good luck tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 So, essentially you write, try to form opinions and expect others to act on it?Is it not the very "moral imperialism" you accuse polar of partaking on? Force and discourse are not the same thing. In fact, they are radically different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke426 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 They key difference between schatt's method and Grub's method is that grub's method is a method. Fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I stand corrected, Polaris declared war on FPI because CIS couldn't defeat it's own protectorate by itself. Pack it up, everybody, show's over. that is totally it Schatt. it seems without your spies feeding you info on alliances, you have little to no clue what you are talking about. especially since you neglected the fact that Polaris suffered during the SPW/WotC war. Polaris is not entirely the same as they once were but if you think the SPW would get Polaris to lose the code of ethics and honor that it held onto is a mistake. maybe if \m/ just grew the $%&@ up and stopped with their inane and childish antics, they would not be in this mess. instead, they choose to insult Grub versus acting with diplomacy regardless of whether Grub was threatening them or not. it is not that hard to tell someone respectfully to $%&@ off. \m/ seems unable to do that and thus, it lead to war. again, it is amazing the amount of whining and crying going on from \m/ and those who support \m/. i thought \m/ loved war. now that they have one, all they can do is cry about it and all their supporters can do is cry some more. seriously, if you love war don't cry but embrace it. again, it seems that \m/ cannot do that. oh and yes, before ya'll state but MM and Eargoma (sp?) are stating how much they love it, well 2 people do not \m/ make. it seems that many in \m/ have issues with the war and its cb versus loving the fact that they are at war. seems \m/ only truly loves war when they know they can curbstomp the other alliance. well boo$%&@inghoo for \m/. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jackson Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 When an emperor of an alliance issues an order, the final decision is left ultimately to the rulers.Even if he/she punishes those who disobey, its still a choice everyone has to make at all times. Of course disobeying has consequences, as well as going against what is perceived to be the consensus of right has consequences. Except for the fact that this is completely irrelevant. This was no order, so therefore how can it be obeyed or disobeyed? Then again, you've already stated it's punishment, in which case it doesn't matter how it was responded to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Fixed They are both methods with the same intentions, and I dispute the notion of moral imperialism. Its a notion created by people trying to get away with things that are agreed to be wrong through political maneuvers. Morals can and have been used to establish dominance and oppress detractors, and it is precisly why they shouldn't be a card to be used in all instances without questioning. When there is questioning, it becomes ethics, which I wholeheartedly support. With saying this, I'll really have to continue this at a later time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.