Jump to content

Meet the new Polaris


Schattenmann

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 by Locke426
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Locke426
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Thomas Jackson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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...