Meta Discussion

If I were to "fold" because even on diplo attack was successful that would mean I think the answer to intellectual questions should be decided by force of arms.  That would be unethical of me and thus, "Are you kidding?"

More to the point though, is that you actually think, or at least imply, that I SHOULD do so.  Maybe you didn't mean to imply that?  So what is your opinion on the relationship between civil discussion and force?  Are you of the opinion that discussion is must polite force?  And more importantly, SHOULD it be, and if so, why? (I taught English Composition so of course any "yes/no" questions are followed with, "why do you think that?"  LOL).

AJ

ajqtrz wrote: In the end this discussion is about ethics.  Do you wish to be ethical and to follow the traditional rules of debate, where evidence is verifiable, presented when requested and especially civil?  Or do you think of debate as a verbal brawl preceding the physical one?

"i do hope someone eventually starts a genuine discussion of the merits of these things"  ....it's in "Are land claims good for Illy?"

Hope that helps.

In the end this discussion is about ethics.  Do you wish to be ethical and to follow the traditional rules of debate, where evidence is verifiable, presented when requested and especially civil?  Or do you think of debate as a verbal brawl preceding the physical one?  One of the things I've often pondered is the advantages from an evolutionary perspective, of the use of language in place of physical conflict.  It would seem to me that in a social group where differences of opinion resolved by words rather than clubs would naturally have a lower mortality rate...meaning it would be "more fit" and thus survive more.  Of course, the barbarian in the corner may not like that idea that he can't use his club to make decisions for others, but collectively the cave group is stronger than he, and thus, as I like to picture it, the use of language to settle differences evolved. 

In any case, part of the process by which we substitute verbal contests for physical ones is the development of an understanding that the club speaks bluntly but never answers the question while the words can, with enough patients and work, do so.  And in this way "the pen is mightier than the sword."  At least in the long run I would hope.

As for something somebody said earlier about my approach being a bit "unreal" and "idealistic" (my words, not theirs), I suspect that is true.  But I've always felt that reaching for the stars you cannot reach may at least get you to the moon, while reaching for nothing always leaves you in the shadows.  Your feet may be on the ground but you never soar that way.

So "real life" isn't perfect.  Why not nudge it in the right direction?  If you really want a challenge, try that.

AJ

ajqtrz wrote: TVM's definition actually says they are going to administer part of Illy.  STOMP says they are going to protect ALL of Illy and that is what we all should be doing.

then why, after all this rhetoric, are you not doing it?

A bit convoluted but of course, the "Zone 2" is in effect for all of Illy even if STOMP doesn't claim it.  TVM's definition actually says they are going to administer part of Illy.  STOMP says they are going to protect ALL of Illy and that is what we all should be doing.  I seriously doubt Pico and the gang are actually claiming anything, but instead, using a pragmatic statement to make the point that ALL of Illyriad needs protecting from the land grabbers (don't you love that term?), and they intend to do that protecting.  More power to them.

See what happens when you actually present your evidence?  You get an nice explanation about how you aren't interpreting it correctly.....and that too is part of civil debate.

AJ