Deceit of Defenderism

Chin Chillas said:
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.
Click to expand...
Other LKE members will be able to confirm that Lucius was away at the time and that was the reason was the founder was dead, which in turn was why troops were moved into the region when they were freed up from another operation. In any case, particularly after the event itself had taken place and when the FRA had been contacted, it should not have presumed its speculation and rejected the LKE's complaints. without making enquiries. Now the Arch Chancellor himself has arrived, and not some lowly figure apparently without any office or influence, I presume we can expect that apology.

Lexus said:
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 tongue.gif
Click to expand...
Unlike with Falconias, my complaint throughout was not that you were a spy on the FRA payroll so much as someone who trusted them and was trusted by some (not all) of them. Your FRA link certainly made you less willing to acknowledge their now accepted wrongdoing and you were moving Europeia closer to the FRA, whether or not it was with joint operations with AWP or later the Feudal Japan 'liberation' in breach of the promise to TNI. I continue to believe that your later actions of running for FRA Arch Chancellor and becoming Falconias's Deputy Arch Chancellor, after Falconias and Karputsk had just been discovered as FRA's spies in Europeia's Cabinet, continues to show you as 'horribly ebil' to borrow your term.

Unibot said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am not the 'lone wolf of truth' so to speak: others in the invader and neutral world, as is evidenced by this and Rachel Anumia's thread, share my not uncommon views. Yet it is no coincidence that any time I have discussed these issues with FRA members the first comment they make, gradually more explicitly, is that I am 'a conspiracy theorist' or something of the sort. Indeed, the GRA even ran updates specifically accusing me of being such. The fact the FRA resorts to these tactics does not justify my argument in itself, but it does demonstrate that the FRA have certainly discussed over the last couple of years how to best to refute arguments along the lines I have been making and the circles of senior members I have referred to have an agreed default position in doing so which they faithfully stick to when conversing with me. That is demonstrative of the type of organisation that the FRA is.

Jahka said:
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.
Click to expand...
Assuming what I say regarding why the founder was dead is true, it is less 'hilarious' than the alternative theory propagated by Chin Chillas. In any case, the telegram was sent after they had been ejected, not before, by means of explanation. They did not need to 'stop' defending. They merely needed to investigate the matter rather than issuing blank refusals based on pure speculation. If it was an honest mistake by the FRA, then why have they not corrected their error with an apology to the LKE for infringing their sovereign territory?
 
Onderkelkia said:
If it was an honest mistake by the FRA, then why have they not corrected their error with an apology to the LKE for infringing their sovereign territory?
Click to expand...
Because you come off as unfriendly sometimes. :p

EDIT: Choose a better word than previously.
 
Irrelevant to other points (as in, I'm not challenging nor supporting any others), you really need to stop complaining about Feudal Japan. Whether or not Lex was President, I would have put absolutely everything of myself into seeing that one through. Hell, had I known about the invasion before it happened, I might have even switched back ;)
 
Jahkalahka said:
Skizzy Grey said:
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?"
Click to expand...
Rachel did admit she was at least partly wrong. :p

http://s7.zetaboards.com/FRA/topic/8502869/4/ IDK if you'll have permission or not.
Click to expand...
They fought pretty hard when I told them my view rather than looking to see what happened on their side, it's annoying. It's never been "ok, there's an issue here and let's see we can do about it". They were giving explanations (without looking into what happened) and berating me for not doing enough in TUK.
 
unibot said:
Anumia said:
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".
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
You may wish to be more careful with your phrasing, then. ;)
 
Anumia said:
Irrelevant to other points (as in, I'm not challenging nor supporting any others), you really need to stop complaining about Feudal Japan. Whether or not Lex was President, I would have put absolutely everything of myself into seeing that one through. Hell, had I known about the invasion before it happened, I might have even switched back ;)
Click to expand...
I know this may come as a shock to you, but you are not the whole of Europeia.
 
Onderkelkia said:
Anumia said:
Irrelevant to other points (as in, I'm not challenging nor supporting any others), you really need to stop complaining about Feudal Japan. Whether or not Lex was President, I would have put absolutely everything of myself into seeing that one through. Hell, had I known about the invasion before it happened, I might have even switched back ;)
Click to expand...
I know this may come as a shock to you, but you are not the whole of Europeia.
Click to expand...
I feel fairly comfortable in saying that, at the time, and now, I would have agreed with him. I don't think Anumia and I are so alone.
 
Whatever Anumia, you and other individuals thought, what Europeia did as a region was the president's decision and his decision broke a promise he made to the TNI Government that Europeia would never knowingly partake in any operation alongside any FRA forces unless it was a training exercise and I am confident that a president without FRA associations and an ideological commitment to 'raiding' over defending would have certainly felt more uneasy about so brazenly breaking that commitment to TNI. He has now apologised for not consulting TNI over doing so, but that is unrelated to point.
 
A promise freely made would have been one thing, but that promise would likely never have been asked for (I say "asked for" loosely; while I have no knowledge of the circumstances in which the promise was made, I can make an educated guess that it was more of an extraction than a free offer) with a different President anyway.

Also, my status as a divine statue-region notwithstanding, I am confident that I know the people here well enough to know they would not agree with the long-term griefing of Feudal Japan by Catlandatopia, ideological commitment to raiding or not, and many would not baulk at the idea of working in favour of the liberation.

Further, circumstances changed. I'm sure it shocked those who often represent themselves as the whole of TNI when they learned they did not own our Navy nor our foreign policy and never did.

Now, a wise man would let this matter lie where it should, in the "finished" category, particularly considering that you're letting the topic sway from the rather enjoyable admission by the Arch Chancellor of the FRA of making completely incorrect (and in their mistakenness, controversial) statements about an important new policy of his organisation, to complaining about someone who is in fact mostly on your side in this argument.
 
A promise freely made would have been one thing, but that promise would likely never have been asked for (I say "asked for" loosely; while I have no knowledge of the circumstances in which the promise was made, I can make an educated guess that it was more of an extraction than a free offer) with a different President anyway.
Click to expand...
It was asked for when it was discovered in January 2009 that AWP and Europeia were doing joint operations and it was asked for by the then Reich Chancellor, Joshua IX. Lexus chose to make the promise, in fact the amendded version of it allowing training exercises was Europeia's proposal. The promise was not asked for because Lexus was the president and our outrage regarding the joint AWP-Europeia operations would have been the same with any president, although I doubt other presidents would have run those operations so casually in any case.

Also, my status as a divine statue-region notwithstanding, I am confident that I know the people here well enough to know they would not agree with the long-term griefing of Feudal Japan by Catlandatopia, ideological commitment to raiding or not, and many would not baulk at the idea of working in favour of the liberation.
Click to expand...
I am not debating the merits of the 'liberation' (though I oppose it, that is beside the point) so much as saying that a president without FRA links and who ideologically believed in invading as opposed to defending would have been less likely to break the promise to TNI.

Further, circumstances changed. I'm sure it shocked those who often represent themselves as the whole of TNI when they learned they did not own our Navy nor our foreign policy and never did.
Click to expand...
If you mean that 'circumstances changed' in that the then Government of Europeia felt it had no interest in keeping promises to the Government of TNI, then that is true. For me, it was surprising to the extent that I thought Lexus would not go back on his word so flagrantly and if he were to depart from the policy, would do it in the deceptive and gradual manner that is characteristic of the FRA. You would have to ask Joshua IX and H.P. Lovecraft, then Reich Chancellor and Foreign Minister respectively, the officials responsible for handling the negotiations in the main after my initial discussions following the discovery of Europeia-AWP cooperation, how they felt about it.

Now, a wise man would let this matter lie where it should, in the "finished" category, particularly considering that you're letting the topic sway from the rather enjoyable admission by the Arch Chancellor of the FRA of making completely incorrect (and in their mistakenness, controversial) statements about an important new policy of his organisation, to complaining about someone who is in fact mostly on your side in this argument.
Click to expand...
I have not, and am not going to start now, leaving matters lie, in particular when they are attacks on my person, for wider public relations purposes. My objective here is not to blindly attack the FRA at whatever its weakest point is. It is to put forward what I view to be the correct interpretation of events. It is not a matter of enjoyment or not, though I would agree entirely that it suggests personal incompetence indicative of wider organisational flaws that the Arch Chancellor of the FRA does not understand his own policy, unlike his lowly colleagues here (though I would argue the policy's implementation could easily see it descend into 'pre-emptive defending' of the sort Chin Chillas was so anxious to distance the FRA from). However, in any case, Lexus has not intervened in this argument to make a point against the FRA and has intervened at a couple of points to argue in their favour, so I hardly see how he can be deemed mostly on my side.
 

Onder, I think Anumia was saying he is "mostly on your side" -- not Lex.

It wouldn't kill either of you to be more clear or concise. :p
 

Well, your two posts prior to that one referred to Anumia. This gem was the first:

I know this may come as a shock to you, but you are not the whole of Europeia.
Click to expand...

Then, the second:

Whatever Anumia, you and other individuals thought, what Europeia did as a region was the president's decision and his decision broke a promise he made to the TNI Government that Europeia would never knowingly partake in any operation alongside any FRA forces unless it was a training exercise and I am confident that a president without FRA associations and an ideological commitment to 'raiding' over defending would have certainly felt more uneasy about so brazenly breaking that commitment to TNI. He has now apologised for not consulting TNI over doing so, but that is unrelated to point.
Click to expand...

I understand your confusion, Onder. It's not clear to me either.

My best guess is Anumia was chiding you for a tactical error -- you had gotten some remarkable concessions from the fendas, but rather than pressing your advantage, you changed the subject.
 
Skizzy Grey said:
Well, your two posts prior to that one referred to Anumia. This gem was the first:

I know this may come as a shock to you, but you are not the whole of Europeia.
Click to expand...

Then, the second:

Whatever Anumia, you and other individuals thought, what Europeia did as a region was the president's decision and his decision broke a promise he made to the TNI Government that Europeia would never knowingly partake in any operation alongside any FRA forces unless it was a training exercise and I am confident that a president without FRA associations and an ideological commitment to 'raiding' over defending would have certainly felt more uneasy about so brazenly breaking that commitment to TNI. He has now apologised for not consulting TNI over doing so, but that is unrelated to point.
Click to expand...

I understand your confusion, Onder. It's not clear to me either.

My best guess is Anumia was chiding you for a tactical error -- you had gotten some remarkable concessions from the fendas, but rather than pressing your advantage, you changed the subject.
Click to expand...
I don't need a bl***y interpreter! -but you're correct nevertheless :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top