Deceit of Defenderism

[OnderKelkia]

I see the standard FRA technique of framing me as a 'mad' conspiracy theorist whenever I say anything that is too close to the truth for comfort has been invoked once again. The methodical way in which the FRA intervention in this thread has been organised is evident, although it is indeed obvious that the FRA has an interest in arguing against HEM and Rachel Anumia's points, hence why their arrival has been arranged.

Also, if you think DYP holds any significant position, the joke is all on you. tongue.gif

I referred to him as an eminence grise without any apparent position. I would not under-estimate his influence in some senior FRA circles, even if not those of the 'current administration' to borrow your earlier term.

As for explanations, it seems equally viable, from my perspective, that the UKB incident was nothing more than an orchestrated attempt by LKE to lure the FRA Rangers into deploying to what appeared to be a founderless region under raider occupation precisely in order to provide them with ammunition in their irrational, unending and ineffective campaign to discredit and fracture the FRA.

That is the explanation you have already made here, which I was contrasting the LKE perspective with:

To us it appeared you had made the region look vulnerable, like any other LKE raid, precisely so we would deploy and you could take some satisfaction in banning us (making us look like fools, basically), rather than it being considered a violation of LKE sovereignty.

What you claim to have been the case, as I have already detailed, was not the case. LKE forces, using troops from a previous operation which needed moving somewhere, were sent into occupy UKB because its founder died and Lucius was away (hence why I was regent of the LKE at the time and was in a position to the issue the declaration of war that I did). The founder was then revived with the password, given to Falconio for use in emergencies, when we found the region attacked. That the FRA decided to follow the LKE is only a reflection of their antagonism towards the LKE and was quite outrageous. Given why LKE forces were sent in, which you are now are of, your 'perspective' is far from equally possible.

 

[Chin-Chillas]

Perhaps if the FRA avoided the policy of installing their own troops as delegates when active natives were around, this could all be...avoided.

That is the favoured policy where possible.

The methodical way in which the FRA intervention in this thread has been organised is evident, although it is indeed obvious that the FRA has an interest in arguing against HEM and Rachel Anumia's points, hence why their arrival has been arranged.

Again, I think our competence is being vastly over-exaggerated in this regard.

What you claim to have been the case, as I have already detailed, was not the case. LKE forces, using troops from a previous operation which needed moving somewhere, were sent into occupy UKB because its founder died and Lucius was away (hence why I was regent of the LKE at the time and was in a position to the issue the declaration of war that I did). The founder was then revived with the password, given to Falconio for use in emergencies, when we found the region attacked. That the FRA decided to follow the LKE is only a reflection of their antagonism towards the LKE and was quite outrageous. Given why LKE forces were sent in, which you are now are of, your 'perspective' is far from equally possible.

I see an equal lack of factual evidence for LKE's perspective as the FRA's. Such is the case only because you have said so.

 

[Luna Dancing]

Rachel's main point about TUK was incorrect...

 

[Pope Lexus X]

I can see this descending into another of your mad conspiracy rant threads.

You mean like Onder's conspiracy that Falconias was a spy?

I give Onder a lot of crap, but he's generally right. Europeians remember all the spies that have come from your organization, and we also remember who caught them.

To be fair, he did lambast you about me being so horribly ebil and the worst of FRA spies for a good 3/4 of my time as President. Think he was on vacation for the other 1/4..

If you blame everyone, you're bound to get one right I suppose

 

[hyanygo]

I just had some hot chocolate from the cafe opposite and it was nice. Also, couldn't give two hoots about all of this.

 

[unibot]

There is no new policy

What about the Rogue Delegate policy? That's new, isn't it? ^_^

It's not 'preemptive defending' if I understand the buzzword correctly, the policy is about intervening when delegates go rogue and natives request for help. The FRA would have to be responding to some sort of rogue delegate's policies to intervene using this new bill. I don't see how something that is a response can be preemptive, but perhaps I'm missing the point of your argument.

I see the standard FRA technique of framing me as a 'mad' conspiracy theorist whenever I say anything that is too close to the truth for comfort has been invoked once again.

And I see the standard technique of any radical theorist to try to glorify themselves as the 'lone wolf of truth'. The accused depiction of you as a 'crazy' conspiracy theorist provides no substantial counter-argument beyond ad-hominem premises, but to identify yourself as the man of truth because others don't like what you have to say is to build your argument using premises that even you yourself have discouraged by pointing out that using the words, 'conspiracy theorists' is ad hominem. Otherwise, you're committing a sort of circular ad hominem argument. Neither (1) the accusation that you're a conspiracy theorist, nor, (2) that you're veracious due to the fact that people resort to ad-hominems against you is a substantial argument that proves either parties' point.

For example, just because some people call Glenn Beck out as a moron, doesn't refute his positions, nor can Glenn Beck defend his positions merely by referring to hundreds of liberals that would succumb to ad-hominems against him like "you're moron". The poor debate skills of one's opponent does not defend Glenn Beck's position directly, nor does it for yours.

 

[Jahka]

I have no interest in this debate, but I laughed at Onder denying the conspiracy claim. Onder, big boy, here's what they meant...

Equally likely, more so in my assessment, is that you believed that the LKE founder nation was dead and was not going to return, especially as UKB, an established region, had a long standing LKE connection beforehand, so decided to seize one of our colonies in order to take action against an enemy and claim it was a legitimate (not that such a thing exists) 'liberation'.

I think when you make claims like that it's hilarious. No one denies that the FRA was in the wrong (you made your points quite clear in the paragraph after my exert), and yet you won't believe it was a mistake by the FRA. It's only his word vs your word. If the FRA says they though it was a legitimate invasion. That is very reasonable considering it was a founderless region and foreign WA's were moving in and endorsing a point man. Then, a known raider telegrams them and tells them to stop because its legitimate. You find it that hard to believe they didn't believe you?

That is where the calls of conspiracy claims start.

 

[HEM]

There is no new policy

What about the Rogue Delegate policy? That's new, isn't it? ^_^

It's not 'preemptive defending' if I understand the buzzword correctly, the policy is about intervening when delegates go rogue and natives request for help. The FRA would have to be responding to some sort of rogue delegate's policies to intervene using this new bill. I don't see how something that is a response can be preemptive, but perhaps I'm missing the point of your argument.

I see the standard FRA technique of framing me as a 'mad' conspiracy theorist whenever I say anything that is too close to the truth for comfort has been invoked once again.

And I see the standard technique of any radical theorist to try to glorify themselves as the 'lone wolf of truth'. The accused depiction of you as a 'crazy' conspiracy theorist provides no substantial counter-argument beyond ad-hominem premises, but to identify yourself as the man of truth because others don't like what you have to say is to build your argument using premises that even you yourself have discouraged by pointing out that using the words, 'conspiracy theorists' is ad hominem. Otherwise, you're committing a sort of circular ad hominem argument. Neither (1) the accusation that you're a conspiracy theorist, nor, (2) that you're veracious due to the fact that people resort to ad-hominems against you is a substantial argument that proves either parties' point.

For example, just because some people call Glenn Beck out as a moron, doesn't refute his positions, nor can Glenn Beck defend his positions merely by referring to hundreds of liberals that would succumb to ad-hominems against him like "you're moron". The poor debate skills of one's opponent does not defend Glenn Beck's position directly, nor does it for yours.

Yet, you refuse to respond to an article that shows (at the very least) that your brand of "ethical" defenderism is complete malarkey.

 

[unibot]

Yet, you refuse to respond to an article that shows (at the very least) that your brand of "ethical" defenderism is complete malarkey.

Whether or not you find substance in my defender values is of little relevance to whether you think the rules of formal logic should be applied in discourse. Nor have I 'refused' to respond to anything, the act of not doing something is not an overt refusal -- you're assuming I know where this thread is ...

Also I highly doubt that anything you have to say is conclusive enough about my 'brand' of defending philosophy to warrant saying that it 'shows' anything at all. It perhaps shows that my philosophies are not uncontroversial especially around the invader sympathizing crowd.. which should not come as a surprise to me.

 

[Rach]

Why did you compare HEM to Glenn Beck?

 

[unibot]

Why did you compare HEM to Glenn Beck?

I compared two situations to emphasize a logical dilemma -- two people who try to legitimize their arguments by using their opponent's defeating resort to ad hominem attacks ... Glenn Beck and Onder. I am not saying Onder shares similar political philosophies, Beck was merely the first name that came to my head for someone who doesn't have popular ideas among many and is the target of ad-hominems that the subject tries to use as a defense of his ideas.

 

[Rach]

Why did you compare HEM to Glenn Beck?

I compared two situations to emphasize a logical dilemma -- two people who try to legitimize their arguments by using their opponent's defeating resort to ad hominem attacks ... Glenn Beck and Onder. I am not saying Onder shares similar political philosophies, Beck was merely the first name that came to my head for someone who doesn't have popular ideas among many and is the target of ad-hominems that the subject tries to use as a defense of his ideas.

I'm out of it, I thought you were referring to HEM. It just doesn't seem very respectful to me and I don't think I've ever heard someone being compared to Glenn Beck without it being an insult.

I mean, you can't say that Onder was not Glenn Beck in your comparison.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

opkorn: opkorn: opkorn: opkorn: opkorn: opkorn:

This is so abstractly interesting.

Its amazing how seriously some people take this game.

Plus I like learning more about how wider NS 'Geopolitics' works.

 

[HEM]

Yet, you refuse to respond to an article that shows (at the very least) that your brand of "ethical" defenderism is complete malarkey.

Whether or not you find substance in my defender values is of little relevance to whether you think the rules of formal logic should be applied in discourse. Nor have I 'refused' to respond to anything, the act of not doing something is not an overt refusal -- you're assuming I know where this thread is ...

Also I highly doubt that anything you have to say is conclusive enough about my 'brand' of defending philosophy to warrant saying that it 'shows' anything at all. It perhaps shows that my philosophies are not uncontroversial especially around the invader sympathizing crowd.. which should not come as a surprise to me.

Yes, assuming you know where this thread is poses such a stretch of logic. Except of course, you are now posting within it, which I regard as a factor leaning toward the probability of you knowing the location of this illustrious thread.

Your perpetual bash of invaders for ethical reasons -- alongside your branding of us as uncivilized and cruel people -- speaks more to your naivety than anything else. If you can honestly rant in such sanctimonious ultimatums simultaneously as you lead an organization that has more in common with an international drug cartel than a defender of freedoms, than little help is available I suppose.

 

[Anumia]

So how does determining an invasion work? Magic eight ball and a sock puppet?

Gold.

 

[Anumia]

However, we have recently passed a Rogue Delegacy policy which will allow the FRA cabinet to deploy rangers in regions like TRR if there is a threat of a rogue delegate getting into power. A rogue delegate is defined as "one whose domestic regional policies and actions are characterized by a self-destructive intent in regards to a region, unless these actions or policies are sanctioned by a legitimate authority". "These policies include, but are not limited to; reduction of government, loss of political enfranchisement, denial of freedom of assembly or speech and admin masking on the forums."

So. What do you think about that?

To be fair he's only really given you half the story, or at least hasn't phrased it too well. There are extremely strict rules that follow in that policy in regards to the necessary conditions for FRA Ranger deployment to be possible. There's no mention of a 'threat' of a rogue delegate getting into power. It's for use when a rogue delegate is in power.

There's a mention. Right there.

Now, there is a significant difference between what he said and what you said. Saying that it allows for "responding to a threat..." is not a poor turn of phrase, especially for someone with such a firm control of the English language. There was no mistake there; the Arch Chancellor clearly said "threat".

It's not 'preemptive defending' if I understand the buzzword correctly, the policy is about intervening when delegates go rogue and natives request for help. The FRA would have to be responding to some sort of rogue delegate's policies to intervene using this new bill. I don't see how something that is a response can be preemptive, but perhaps I'm missing the point of your argument.

The point of the argument is that you said that Rangers could be sent in in response to a threat of a Rogue Delegate getting into power. This is future tense, wherein comes the "pre-emptiveness" of the strike. You cannot "respond" to the future.

If the FRA cabinet determines a "threat" - that is, the potential future takeover by a Rogue Delegate - then by your own words, the new policy allows them to send in Rangers. There is nothing responsive about that.

Now, either the Arch Chancellor of the FRA does not adequately understand the new policy (showing that his executive policy oversteps the legislative mandate), or he understood it perfectly (and thus the FRA approves of pre-emptive measures), but upon outside examination of this new policy, would seek to cloak it in falsehood.

 

[Skizzy Grey]

Wait, are we still talking about a bunch of virgins peering at their computer terminals in the middle of the night?

Because for a moment, you guys seemed really pissed at each other.

 

[Skizzy Grey]

Ok, I'll bite. Two questions:

1. Why can't a fenda admit he's wrong? There are lots of ex-TUKers here; if Rachel was wrong, they'd say so. What she said obviously speaks to the TUK perspective. Why not just say "hey, we f--ked up?"

2. Why can't anyone make a point succinctly in this thread? Proofread, dammit.

 

[Mekhet]

:huh:

I think the purpose of this all was for Uni.

I mean, some of this still applies on a whole & some is debatable, but...


opkorn:

 

[unibot]

Now, there is a significant difference between what he said and what you said. Saying that it allows for "responding to a threat..." is not a poor turn of phrase, especially for someone with such a firm control of the English language. There was no mistake there; the Arch Chancellor clearly said "threat".

Nope, re-reading what I wrote in TRR.. my phrasing was poor (in fact, wrong) , its not what the legislation states nor what I meant. We'd only be deploying in reaction to a delegate's policies, this is fairly clear in the legislation.