To Battle
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: To Battle |
|---|---|
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 20:23
Profile
Homepage
Most of you here seem like pacifists, which is an easy position to take when your way of life is not under attack. But what if major aspects of the way you live were under attack? How far would you let things go before you finally took up arms? Keep in mind that in each of these questions, at least one aspect of your way of life in under attack. The point of this is to discover what aspects of your life or what causes you are willing to fight for. Also, assume that if you stay out of any of these wars you will live, but you will now be under the rule of an ideology you oppose. Would you go to war with and possibly die fighting against: 1. an opposing nation just like your nation in every way other than name (given that they attacked your nation first)? 2. an opposing religion (given that the religion you follow endorses the war and you will have to convert if you lose)? 3. an opposing government type (Democracies vs. Dictatorships, or whichever type you hate the most)? 4. an opposing economic theory (Capitalists vs. Communists, or whichever theory you hate the most)? 5. an opposing class (Bourgeois vs. Proletariat, whichever one you aren’t)? 5. racists (given that you are a member of their race)? 6. an alien species bent on the destruction of mankind (you may live as a slave mining salt if you surrender)? 7. me (given that you're 'strong' and fairly well off under my rule)? [ Sunday, November 05, 2006 20:25: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Dollop of Whipped Cream
Member # 391
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 20:31
Profile
Homepage
1. an opposing nation just like your nation in every way other than name (given that they attacked your nation first)? Yes 2. an opposing religion (given that the religion you follow endorses the war and you will have to convert if you lose)? Yes 3. an opposing government type (Democracies vs. Dictatorships, or whichever type you hate the most)? Yes 4. an opposing economic theory (Capitalists vs. Communists, or whichever theory you hate the most)? No 5. an opposing class (Bourgeois vs. Proletariat, whichever one you aren’t)? No 5. racists (given that you are a member of their race)? Yes 6. an alien species bent on the destruction of mankind (you may live as a slave mining salt if you surrender)? Yes 7. me (given that you're 'strong' and fairly well off under my rule)? Yes -------------------- "Tyranicus is about the only one that still posts in the Nethergate Forum." —Randomizer Spiderweb Chat Room Shadow Vale - My site, home of the Spiderweb Chat Database, BoA Scenario Database, & the A1 Quest List, among other things. Posts: 562 | Registered: Friday, December 14 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 20:57
Profile
Homepage
Don't know, don't care, don't ask me. -------------------- The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 20:57
Profile
quote: quote:7) Pffft. You can't even count; I'm not going to digify this with an answer. [ Sunday, November 05, 2006 20:58: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 3171
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 20:58
Profile
Homepage
1. an opposing nation just like your nation in every way other than name (given that they attacked your nation first)? Yes 2. an opposing religion (given that the religion you follow endorses the war and you will have to convert if you lose)? Yes (I'm not a member of any religion so I'm saying yes assuming that they attacked me for not being of their religion) 3. an opposing government type (Democracies vs. Dictatorships, or whichever type you hate the most)? Depends on if it is being run poorly and causing the countries inhabitants harm. 4. an opposing economic theory (Capitalists vs. Communists, or whichever theory you hate the most)? No 5. an opposing class (Bourgeois vs. Proletariat, whichever one you aren’t)? No 5. racists (given that you are a member of their race)? Yes 6. an alien species bent on the destruction of mankind (you may live as a slave mining salt if you surrender)? Yes 7. me (given that you're 'strong' and fairly well off under my rule)? In an instant. Posts: 776 | Registered: Friday, July 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 21:20
Profile
Homepage
*i: Yes, I added in the class question as an afterthought and forgot to change the rest of the numbers. Kind of inane to get worked up over simple mistake, isn’t it? No matter, I already know what your answers are. My answers: 1. No, if the only thing that's going to be changing is that from now on, I'll be called French, it not worth dying for. 2. Yes, not that I'd care much about my own religion, but I would not want to be forced to follow someone elses. 3. Yes, I would fight against a theocracy. 4. Yes, I would fight against communism. 5. Yes, as a prol, I would fight for more, as a bourgeois, I would fight to keep what I have. 5. Yes, racists are evil. 6. Yes, being a slave sucks. 7. Yes, because I would want to take the position of Emperor for myself... from myself. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 21:23
Profile
It's called a joke. Can't even take a joke, seriously, and he wants to be Emperor... Btw, what are my answers? -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1934
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 21:27
Profile
Homepage
This topic is only fuel for more flames. I'm disappointed in you Tully, but not surprised. -------------------- You acquire an item: Radio Free Foil Posts: 1169 | Registered: Monday, September 23 2002 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 21:28
Profile
Homepage
The answer's probably no to all of these, because I'd be of little use as a grunt. I'd probably have to be an officer somehow, or a military tech researcher, or a translator, which I'd do in case of any dire need. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 21:31
Profile
Homepage
To battle, indeed. (I'm not going to dignify the double fives) 1. They attacked, I'd defend. 2. If they attacked, I'd defend. 3. If they attacked, I'd defend. 4. If they attacked, I'd defend. 5. Either way, I'd probably end up fighting for the lower class. 6. If they attacked, I'd defend. Otherwise, there's a decent chance I'd fight. 7. I'd fight to the bitter end. 8. I'd fight until the day I saw your palaces ground to dust by the passing aeons. I'd fight until every single one of your mind-controlled, high-minded bodyguards was dead of at least six different unnatural causes. I'd fight until I could personally spit on the grave of such an oppressive emperor. I'd fight with everything I had, and I would win. So there. :P -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 21:35
Profile
Homepage
*i: You're damn right I can't take a joke. Can you? *i's answers: 1. No, I'm a pacifist, it's not ethical. 2. It depends on blah blah blah. 3. I'd fight in the name of Autocratic Robocracy. 4. I would but I also would not at the same time. 5. The question has too many facets to ever be able to answer. 5. Refuse to answer due to not wanting to hurt the space time continuum. 6. Whine and complain some more. 7. Ban Emperor Tullegolar for no reason again. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Cartographer
Member # 1851
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 21:38
Profile
Homepage
Would you go to war with and possibly die fighting against: 1. an opposing nation just like your nation in every way other than name (given that they attacked your nation first)? No. 2. an opposing religion (given that the religion you follow endorses the war and you will have to convert if you lose)? Well, fortunately the religion I'm interested in in fact would never do such, and I wouldn't anyway. So no. Also, from one faulty religion to another - wouldn't make much of a difference, hmm? 3. an opposing government type (Democracies vs. Dictatorships, or whichever type you hate the most)? No. 4. an opposing economic theory (Capitalists vs. Communists, or whichever theory you hate the most)? No. 5. an opposing class (Bourgeois vs. Proletariat, whichever one you aren’t)? No, 6. racists (given that you are a member of their race)? no, 7. an alien species bent on the destruction of mankind (you may live as a slave mining salt if you surrender)? no, 8. me (given that you're 'strong' and fairly well off under my rule)? and no. -------------------- "I'm not crazy!" "Well, whatever. Maybe you just ate something really questionable, or perhaps someone hit you on the head with something large, blunt and heavy just now. By the way..." Gil nudged Grul pointedly. Ooh! Homepage - Blog - Geneforge, +2, +3 - My Elfwood Gallery and DevArt page So many strange ones around. Don't you think? Posts: 1308 | Registered: Sunday, September 8 2002 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 21:41
Profile
Wrong on all of them I'm afraid. Especially the last one. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 3171
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 21:49
Profile
Homepage
quote:So you would lose your freedom instead of fighting to preserve your own and that of those around you? Posts: 776 | Registered: Friday, July 4 2003 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 22:06
Profile
1) Yes, the change may be nominal, but still fighting to protect national identity is important. 2) Yes, religious views should not be imposed, they are meaningless if not truly believed anyway. This is, in part, what the current misnamed "War on Terror" is about. 3) Yes, corruption of the US constitutional democracy should be protected from things that are inherently corrupting. Unfortunately, we are on our way in the US. Fortunately, there are still ways to fix it within the laws. 4) No, although poor economic policies can be ruinous, we know the answer of a good economic policy is somewhere in between socialism and capitalism, neither of the extremes work. If you try, history shows in most cases you get back to the ideal. Now, I'd rather not switch away to the extreme, that's for sure. 5) If I were on the lower class side and all else failed. If I were on the upper class, I would, out of duty, give generously to the lower class anyway. 5) Yes, racial segregation movements are not only abhorrent, it is destructive to society. 6) Yes, as futile as it may be. 7) Why don't you go stroke your ego in private? -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Cartographer
Member # 1851
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 22:25
Profile
Homepage
quote:I took that more as a no-aliens-exist, actually. Now, if one forced me to consider this seriously... Probably still no. What the hell could I do, anyway? :\ -------------------- "I'm not crazy!" "Well, whatever. Maybe you just ate something really questionable, or perhaps someone hit you on the head with something large, blunt and heavy just now. By the way..." Gil nudged Grul pointedly. Ooh! Homepage - Blog - Geneforge, +2, +3 - My Elfwood Gallery and DevArt page So many strange ones around. Don't you think? Posts: 1308 | Registered: Sunday, September 8 2002 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 22:27
Profile
Homepage
1. Not possible, and you're confusing state with nation (not that it's unusual). As bad as America has been recently, it's not going to attack other Western powers (or lack of powers). I guess I don't really care here, though. Assuming no one fought for the defending side and there were no deaths, it would be a pretty victimless (war) crime. 2. Depends on the religion and whether I'd have to be more faithful than I am now, which isn't very. Against a fundamentalist regime I'd be willing to fight. But for religion to be imposed we'd have despotism, which is another category. 3. Yes. 4. Economic theories don't fight. For one to be imposed it has to come from popular will, against which I'm unwilling to fight (although I might relocate) or despotism, which falls under category 3. 5. Proletarian uprisings don't happen, and Marx's classes are vast oversimplifications. I don't think this one can be answered because I don't think the question is meaningful without a long discussion of class struggle, the meaning of classes, and the possibility of popular rebellion without specific ringleaders. As I think you've pointed out, rebellions from the bottom never actually invert society: there's always someone at the top. Other 5. For the record, this is the most interesting category. I'd be willing to fight, but again only if these racists were about to seize control. And that would be despotism yet again. 6. Yes. 7. This is a little bit of 2 (ethics instead of religion, but bear with me), a whole lot of 3, and a dash of 4. Yes, I'd gladly take up arms against you, and I think it would be one of the situations that would give me the fewest qualms since your morals strike me as a good recipe for a repeat of the worst political abuses of Soviet and Chinese communism. —Alorael, who thinks most of these questions have the problem of falling under category 3: they're all imposing some kind of society from above, which means some kind of totalitarianism. He also thinks that in stipulating wars of defense you've made it slightly harder for pacifists than overt aggression, but preemptive fighting to make defense easier is where the real moral quandaries lie. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 22:42
Profile
Homepage
Hollow Soulless Eyes: So you would rather live as a slave than die fighting your oppressors? I guess if that's how you feel then that's how you feel. There is something wrong with your not fighting against racists, however. You would stand by while such things happen? *i: Never took you for the nationalistic type, interesting. Alorael: 1) I didn't say state because I wanted to avoid confusion. "No, Tullegolar, I would not go to war with Nevada." 4) As for economic systems, yes they can be imposed and thus fight against each other. Can you not have two dictatorships (same government) but one enforcing communism while the other supports capitalism? If your benevolent dictaor who supports a mixed economy was about to be overthrown by a communist dictator, would you fight or not? Other 5) No, a racist regime does not have to be despotism, it may even have public support. Would you fight the majority? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 22:42
Profile
Homepage
1. Do I care about the diferences? If we are attacked, I will fight back. If provoked beyond reason afterwards, I will end the threat. 2. I will not go into a religious war, as it is a paradox. And I will never convert, unless convinced that I am wrong. 3. See #1. 4. See #1. 5. What would the point be? 5. I prefer reform in the case of social issues as such. 6. I die free. 7. Bring it. -------------------- The Silent Assassin has come up with a new form of subterfuge involving large conflagrations and jello. So long as he cleans up the mess in the kitchen. -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 22:44
Profile
Homepage
Have you ever wondered whether or not the developers of UBB threw in these little bugs just to see what the users would do when they happen? I'd say "Here's to Spam", but Tyran ruined that for me. [ Sunday, November 05, 2006 22:48: Message edited by: Lenar Labs ] -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
|
Cartographer
Member # 1851
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 22:47
Profile
Homepage
quote:What, I'm not allowed to die *without* fighting? We're already oppressed in this world, but the fight is not for us. quote:Things happen. Then better things follow. Everyone gets their due eventually, I think. -------------------- "I'm not crazy!" "Well, whatever. Maybe you just ate something really questionable, or perhaps someone hit you on the head with something large, blunt and heavy just now. By the way..." Gil nudged Grul pointedly. Ooh! Homepage - Blog - Geneforge, +2, +3 - My Elfwood Gallery and DevArt page So many strange ones around. Don't you think? Posts: 1308 | Registered: Sunday, September 8 2002 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 23:17
Profile
quote:More poor philosophy from Tullegolar: ad hominem attacks ('sure is easy if you don't have to defend it!') in the place of actual debate on an issue. Additionally, he seems to dramatically overstate the pacifist tendencies of SW, offering no particular evidence for doing so - but of course, we know he does that. quote:Here we have a confusion of purposes: the introduction questions how well pacifist philosophy holds up in practicality, whereas the second clause asks its proponents to address it in theory. quote:The confusion of purposes means that this assumption is far less reasonable: we're supposed to consider these real circumstances, but apply unreal paradigms to them. A good ethicist never greases his conclusions. quote:This doesn't relate to 'ideology' at all, does it? quote:All of this reflects a fundamental confusion of purpopses which you, dear reader, would be best to avoid. They call this the fallacy of disparate comparisons - here, the hypothetical war is against a diametrically opposed faction whose total victory is entirely contingent on your personal participation, yet any personal philosophy you might hold to - primarily the philosophy of pacifism - is framed in realist terms. In this fashion, Tullegolar either due to disingenuity or laziness frames the entire discussion as not a serious meeting of the minds but crude proselytization. The world is too dangerous a place for you to bother being good, it all boils down to. Of course, his point of view is now, as always, wrong. The world isn't too dangerous a place to bother being good, because the conditions given are as flawed and unpredictable as the philosophies themselves, both being governed by the conduct of flawed and unpredictable human beings. In laboratory conditions, philosophy is as powerful as practicalities. In the laboratory of history, meanwhile, whether or not we are willing to meet ET's absurd, knuckle-dragging challenge - to tolerate him impugning our bravery for refusing to extinguish human lives - we all aspire to the bravery it would take a German, 1939 vintage, to resist the pull of #2, #3, #4, or #5. [ Sunday, November 05, 2006 23:23: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Sunday, November 5 2006 23:53
Profile
Homepage
TLDR Edit: Was this sufficiently out of character for me, Kelandon? [ Sunday, November 05, 2006 23:54: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Monday, November 6 2006 00:32
Profile
Homepage
quote:1. No 2. No 3. Possibly 4. No 5. No ... uh, 5.1. Likely 6. Possibly 7. Yup. There's just no living under the rule of someone who can't count till 8. (*insert Dubya jab here*) :P Edit: Switched answers to 5.1 and 6, changed answer to 3. Edit, for clarity and explanation. 1.) National identity is a heap of bollocks. Barring rights and laws, there is no sane reason to prefer living as the citizen of one nation as opposed to another. We can spend some time talking about taxes, moving, reconstructional work and just the effort of learning another nation's language, but these aren't relevant to the question. No, this does not mean I would like it if another nation invaded my home country for no reason, but it does mean that any resistance on my part would require insane atrocities by the invaders and/or a utopic system under the previous government. 2.) Ditto for religion. Stareye makes the point that religious values forced on someone are worthless - true. But I won't fight to get rid of something worthless any more than to keep it. Now if the new religion involved human sacrifices from among us, I'd reconsider. 3.) I originally answered no to this one. On review, it looks like this can be worth it - if the dictatorship is really oppressive, and the democracy worked particularly well. And no, as long as speech, press and civil liberties remained unhindered, I wouldn't die for elections. Keep in mind that a dictatorship is not equivalent to fascism - play NationStates. 4.) Completely ridiculous. If worst came to worst, I'd leave. (If they don't let me, we're back to "oppressive", and I might fight to get out). 5.) Similarly ridiculous. 5.1.) I had this as possibly, but am changing it to likely. Among the realistic points on this list, it's just about the only one worth fighting over. So yay for Nelson Mandela and MLK. 6.) Possibly. It depends on the safety conditions in the salt mine. Paraphrasing a quote I remember being attributed to the Dalai Lama (which I can't find now), "show me the alien" before you make me answer hypothetical questions. :P 7.) This one's just patently ridiculous. But I know your ethics, and I would fight to the death to ensure you rule no country. [ Monday, November 06, 2006 04:38: Message edited by: Sirrus ] -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, November 6 2006 06:47
Profile
Homepage
quote:No, you still suck. :P -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2