That bein’ said, I think he’s scum.
— Begin quote from ____
That bein’ said, I think he’s scum.
— End quote
That hurts 
Really?
— Begin quote from ____
I keep politics out of my conversations unless someone asks. 
— End quote
Me too. 
— Begin quote from ____
Really?
— End quote
Tis a joke
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
Pluralism:
a : a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization
b : a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state
— End quote
Claiming to be in favor of pluralism while excluding ‘foreign agitators’ is, in the least, questionable. What constitutes a ‘foreign agitator’ is very subjective to begin with and if it points at a cultural/political group (revolutionaries in this case), then stating you support pluralism is contradictory.
I can understand you personally find it suspicious or are not interested to hear political/revolutionary speech, which is fine, although every citizen has a right to free speech under the Concordat and thus can spread whatever doctrine he or she likes, whether’s it’s polite or appreciated or not.
I understand your view and I respect your opinion, which is not what this is about. Just don’t state you favor pluralism if you don’t really mean that: you can’t subscribe to a principle and negate that principle in the same sentence without contradicting yourself and I justed wanted to point that out.
— End quote
While you simply repeated your original argument, my next statement will clearly and succinctly prove you are ignorant and that god-emperor’s comment, which brushed me aside as “newer,” is juvenile…
First, let’s see what the Concordant says about Erusea’s right to free speech:
— Begin quote from ____
…crickets chirping…
— End quote
That’s right! Nothing! Since he’s not a citizen, he doesn’t have the right to free speech.
However, let’s imagine we’re nice and give Erusea the same liberties a citizen has, or that he goes through the trouble of ratifying the Concordant to become a citizen.
— Begin quote from ____
Article F, Section 1) Each nation shall have the right to free speech and the government shall take no action to limit this except when a nation is determined to be acting deliberately to cause a public nuisance by the Conclave.
— End quote
Hmmm, so if Erusea deliberately acts to causes a public nuisance, the Conclave may limit his free speech. Let me specifically point out this does not mean he needs to cause a public nuisance, but simply has to try to cause one…but what the heck is a public nuisance?
— Begin quote from ____
a nuisance (as obstructing a highway) that causes harm or annoyance to persons in a particular locality in violation of their rights as members of the community
— End quote
If Erusea preaches an ideology that results in mass ejections, etc, then he’d be trying to deprive other citizens of their rights as defined by Article F, Section 7 of the Concordant.
Since I could easily be one of those ejected, I’d personally petition the Conclave to limit Erusea’s free speech if he tries to spread Milograd’s message.
However, you mainly said I can’t support pluralism and try to limit others’ free speech. Despite such a claim, you have provided the definition of pluralism, and it clearly backs me up. Please examine your very own quote, but pay attention to the emphasis I add:
— Begin quote from ____
Pluralism:
a : a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization
b : a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state
— End quote
I support pluralism, which means I believe we all need to stay within the confines of the Concordant. Do you?
— Begin quote from ____
While you simply repeated your original argument, my next statement will clearly and succinctly prove you are ignorant and that god-emperor’s comment, which brushed me aside as “newer,” is juvenile…
— End quote
That’s useless rhetoric.
— Begin quote from ____
First, let’s see what the Concordant says about Erusea’s right to free speech:
— Begin quote from ____
…crickets chirping…
— End quote
That’s right! Nothing! Since he’s not a citizen, he doesn’t have the right to free speech.
— End quote
Alright, I’ll admit, the crickets had me laughing here. Granted, I did not look at his legal status first. You can indeed say he has no legal right to free speech under the Concordat. You have, however, no right whatsoever to decide he can’t say certain things on this forum, from an administrator point of view. We thus fall back on common civility I guess, which is to each is own.
— Begin quote from ____
However, let’s imagine we’re nice and give Erusea the same liberties a citizen has, or that he goes through the trouble of ratifying the Concordant to become a citizen.
— Begin quote from ____
Article F, Section 1) Each nation shall have the right to free speech and the government shall take no action to limit this except when a nation is determined to be acting deliberately to cause a public nuisance by the Conclave.
— End quote
Hmmm, so if Erusea deliberately acts to causes a public nuisance, the Conclave may limit his free speech. Let me specifically point out this does not mean he needs to cause a public nuisance, but simply has to try to cause one…but what the heck is a public nuisance?
— Begin quote from ____
a nuisance (as obstructing a highway) that causes harm or annoyance to persons in a particular locality in violation of their rights as members of the community
— End quote
If Erusea preaches an ideology that results in mass ejections, etc, then he’d be trying to deprive other citizens of their rights as defined by Article F, Section 7 of the Concordant.
Since I could easily be one of those ejected, I’d personally petition the Conclave to limit Erusea’s free speech if he tries to spread Milograd’s message.
— End quote
The quoted section of the Concordat contains two elements, which have to be fulfilled, to construct a public nuisance:
- A deliberate act
- Intention of causing a public nuisance
Stating that one simply needs to try to cause a public nuisance is only right if it contains an effective act, a wrongdoing, and not solely the plan or intention of doing so. If that is what you meant, we agree on this. The difficult part of this section is that it only applies if the wrongdoer wanted to cause a public nuisance, and not if it is experienced by others as a public nuisance, but wasn’t intended as one. The two aforementioned elements both need to be fulfilled. Your subjective opinion about hypothetical revolutionary propaganda being a nuisance is not enough to apply this section if it wasn’t intended as a nuisance, but merely as, for example, diplomatic promotion of the political system of another region.
The burden of proof to apply this section is very high, and with good reason.
Your threshold about what is harmful or annoying to you is personal. While you might go to the Conclave because of hurt feelings, those feelings are not a relevant element in applying the section of the Concordat you referenced. Talking (or preaching) about a political ideology in itself is not an intrusion on other people’s rights, even if that ideology would be harmful if executed.
— Begin quote from ____
However, you mainly said I can’t support pluralism and try to limit others’ free speech. Despite such a claim, you have provided the definition of pluralism, and it clearly backs me up. Please examine your very own quote, but pay attention to the emphasis I add:
— Begin quote from ____
Pluralism:
a : a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization
b : a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state
— End quote
I support pluralism, which means I believe we all need to stay within the confines of the Concordant. Do you?
— End quote
While it’s not sure we are even outside the confines of the Concordat here, I think we interpret the emphasized phrase different. A common civilization can simply mean a place and time where these groups live together under certain circumstances, without specifying any of those. In other words, any of these groups living together can be considered a civilization which is common to these same groups. Supporting pluralism means you agree this is a state of living to be striven for in our society and, if excluding groups from that, you theoretically alter or contradict the general principle of pluralism, because you seem to suggest a better system might be to choose certain groups to form a society, or one group, and exclude all others.
I am of course bound by the confines of the Concordat, but your original statement was that you are “all for pluralism, but that doesn’t include foreign revolutionaries.” In theory, this seems contradictory, especially because “all for pluralism” seems to be as if you are very convinced by this principle. To each his own opinions of course, and I certainly don’t mean to say yours is wrong or mine is better.
Cheers.
I say yours is better.
— Begin quote from ____
I say yours is better.
— End quote
?
Bach clearly lost the argument, and is now contradicting himself and committing hypocrisy. The only obstacle I face when replying to Bach’s post is how to choose from the vast away of problems in his statement. Since I do not want to dissect his post paragraph by paragraph, as some do just to keep their own thoughts from colliding into each other, I will just assume TEPers are intelligent enough to follow me on this word-odyssey.
First, Bach failed to understand my original statement. I did not “decide” Erusea could not say what he wanted, nor did I imply he couldn’t say certain things. I very clearly stated “…I hope you will refrain from proselytizing.”
Wow! I didn’t tell him not to say what he wanted. I only said I hoped he wouldn’t!!!
I don’t know how it can be any clearer, but Bach plainly jumped from my “hopes” to me deciding “he can’t say certain things on this forum.” Did he make a huge overstep, or am I just being paranoid? I must remind everyone that my previous statements were in defense of my belief in pluralism, not in defense of my original statement.
Second, let’s examine the “common civility” that would permit Erusea to spread his message.
WAIT!!! Is Bach implying I broke common civility by being rude and hoping Erusea doesn’t try to get me ejected from TEP, but Erusea himself would not be breaking common civility by trying to get me ejected from TEP? I don’t understand such a contradiction.
I must ask why Bach can apply his own “subjective opinion about hypothetical” common civility, but insist my own opinions don’t apply when they are (a) inherently subjective since the Concordant requires the Conclave’s judgement, and (b) justified as reasonable concerns by the Concordant itself since it guarantees me certain enumerated and in-enumerated rights. Common civility is both hypothetical and subjective since it is not defined by a legal document, aka, it’s philosophy. Therefore, Bach is being hypocritical.
Bach insists I can’t petition the Conclave to prevent Erusea from promoting ejecting me because protecting myself is subjective, but instead he thinks I should rely on common civility. I can only assume common civility implies the Natural Laws of any society. When normal laws fail to define proper action in certain situations, we must revert back to Natural Laws. Natural Laws are a power higher than any government because they are the foundation of the development of government and its social contract with the people. (More definitively, philosophical Natural Laws are higher than philosophical ideals, such as pluralism.) Therefore, the use of common civility and Natural Laws occurs at the same time and must somehow overlap or one builds on the other. Justifiably, I believe common civility rests upon a Natural Law that roughly says the following: “Everyone should be allowed to say anything they want as long as it doesn’t lead to physical harm or property damage.”
Therefore, let’s compare common civility with Bach’s definition of pluralism. Assuming the “confines of a common civilization” are literal borders, pluralism means a pluralist society would allow diverse groups to maintain and develop their beliefs inside the same country. Since SPSR has mass-ejected hundreds of nations because they don’t support the delegate, it’s clearly unsuitable to be a part of a pluralist society. However, Bach has defended Erusea’s right to spread mass-ejection propaganda as part of “common civility.”
So even if I believed Erusea deserves to spread mass-ejection propaganda because of pluralism, society’s Natural Laws, and thus common civility, says such words are illegal and that anyone can execute justice by shutting him up in order to protect their self. By telling the Conclave about Erusea’s propaganda, I am fulfilling my duty to abide by common civility, which means I must protect myself rather than promote pluralism.
In conclusion, it would be reasonable for me to petition the Conclave to limit non-citizen and non-diplomat Erusea from proselytizing SPSR’s mass-ejection beliefs. More importantly, I support both common civility and pluralism, but Bach fails to understand either of them.
Old Federalia, what are you going on about. I feel like I am being accused of something you are anticipating me to do. I came here for personal reasons, like I started before, I am not here in any official capacity of the SPSR. We have rule of law, I am Truth Commissar, I am outside my jurisdiction on anything here.
You are jumping to conclusions about me, and frankly I’m not sure if I should be offended or not.
Huh? Bach brought it upon himself.
If what you said is true, then you will have fulfilled my hopes and dreams! Please reread what I originally said to you if you don’t believe me:
— Begin quote from ____
While we always offer every guest our hospitality, I hope you will refrain from proselytizing.
— End quote
^It means you’re our guest, but that I hope you don’t coup us or anything…
Oh, sorry I started reading from the bottom up. I saw this huge argument over me, and I’m just thinking, wow and all I’ve said was hi.
The East is more friendly though
First off, Erusea, I’d like to apologize this whole discussion is taking place in a topic where you just wanted to say hello. This discussion has escalated far more than it should and has not much to do with you personally. I hope you don’t feel offended or wronged, as I realize this is partly my fault.
Old Federalia, I fail to see the value of your extensive use of ad hominem arguments. I can only hope you realize this is not necessary at all. I will try to be brief this time, since this has been enough.
Saying I understood your original argument wrong because I supposedly concluded you wanted to forbid him to say certain things is simply not true. The original argument was a theoretical contra-position between pluralism and suggested segregation. The freedom of speech issue I reacted about in my last post was in answer to the Section about free speech of the Concordat you cited.
You seem to be confusing these two hypotheses about freedom of speech here, which we talked about separately: either the Concordat applies, or either it doesn’t. The two hypotheses construct two very different situations. If it doesn’t apply, I merely said we fall back to common civility. Nowhere did I make a judgement what this civility would be or that either you, me or Erusea would breach it. I specifically said it was to each his own and I even didn’t state what mine would be, because it’s irrelevant. Note that this hypothesis is completely separate from the other and common civility has nothing to do with the argument about the Concordat.
In the hypothesis were the Concordat would be applied, I just explained the required burden of proof to actually use the Section of the Concordat you cited. Nowhere did I say you can’t try to use it.
Why can’t we be friends, why can’t we be friends?
Um, Bach, this “argument” is completely your fault, and if it escalated, you were responsible. Don’t challenge my beliefs and then expect me not to reply. Further, don’t not own up to challenging my beliefs as if anyone cared who started this argument in the first place. I really cannot understand why you keep trying to make me look bad in this thread, especially since I believe I justified my beliefs with your very own supposed ideals (pluralism and common civility).
First, I’d like to point out my “ad hominem” statements are very valuable because I simply repeated the same things you said and did in your second post:
— Begin quote from ____
“What constitutes a ‘foreign agitator’ is very subjective to begin with and if it points at a cultural/political group (revolutionaries in this case), then stating you support pluralism is contradictory.”
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
WAIT!!! Is Bach implying I broke common civility by being rude and hoping Erusea doesn’t try to get me ejected from TEP, but Erusea himself would not be breaking common civility by trying to get me ejected from TEP? I don’t understand such a contradiction.
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
Just don’t state you favor pluralism if you don’t really mean that: you can’t subscribe to a principle and negate that principle in the same sentence without contradicting yourself and I justed wanted to point that out.
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
Common civility is both hypothetical and subjective since it is not defined by a legal document, aka, it’s philosophy. Therefore, Bach is being hypocritical.
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
(cited a dictionary)
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
…my next statement will clearly and succinctly prove you are ignorant…
— End quote
Second, your last post tries vehemently to undo the fact you misread what I posted originally by saying you were speaking theoretically. If anyone has failed to understand what the other posted, it’s you. Because I demonstrated the fact you misread what I said, you tried to say the same thing about me. That is, in fact, wrong. Please note your use of the second-person pronoun “you,” in contrast to the theoretical third-person pronoun “one.”
— Begin quote from ____
>>>You<<< have, however, no right whatsoever to decide he can’t say certain things on this forum, from an administrator point of view.
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
First, Bach failed to understand my original statement. I did not “decide” Erusea could not say what he wanted, nor did I imply he couldn’t say certain things. I very clearly stated “…I hope you will refrain from proselytizing.”
— End quote
You also claimed you only included the right to free speech in your argument since I brought it up, but you actually brought it up in your second post. Before then, I was simply expressing my hope he would refrain from proselytizing and explaining what I meant. I hope this further invalidates your previous point since this is a pattern of rewriting history.
You went on to say I confused your hypotheses. In reality, I approached both civility and pluralism separately before comparing them.
— Begin quote from ____
WAIT!!! Is Bach implying I broke common civility by being rude and hoping Erusea doesn’t try to get me ejected from TEP, but Erusea himself would not be breaking common civility by trying to get me ejected from TEP? I don’t understand such a contradiction…
…Assuming the “confines of a common civilization” are literal borders, pluralism means a pluralist society would allow diverse groups to maintain and develop their beliefs inside the same country. Since SPSR has mass-ejected hundreds of nations because they don’t support the delegate, it’s clearly unsuitable to be a part of a pluralist society."
— End quote
Further, I compared them because you tried to discredit the application of the Concordant and insisted using civility was more pertinent. Therefore, I rationally showed civility actually supports relying on the subjective use of the Concordant if it is a means to protect myself. By including your definition of pluralism, I simply showed your argument in favor of using civility over the Concordant actually discredits your version of pluralism.
One more thing, although you never said I couldn’t use the Concordant (nor did I say you did), I showed that all of your arguments pointed toward using the Concordant. If that had not been made clear in this post, then surely a reexamination of the others will enlighten you.
In conclusion, you started this argument, caused its escalation, and used poor arguments that all support my beliefs when one actually thinks about them. In fact, Erusea’s last two posts seem to vindicate me.
Hi.
Hello
Welcome to The East Pacific. I am also new here.
Enough.
There’s a reason TEP tends to keep out of the drama limelight. We’re a very tolerant region. This is a region that has made former raider commanders and former members of The Empire into delegates. We’ve taken in people who were kicked out or kicked around by their region or the NS community in general and found that they are productive and community-oriented people. We’ve given people safe haven, former enemy or not, and welcomed them here. We are very much a “second chance” region, and a region that has produced a vibrant and intelligent community that I couldn’t be more proud of, and I never waste an opportunity to let the rest of the NS world know that. But this stuff doesn’t make me feel proud.
I don’t care what alliances, past alliances, views, opinions, beliefs, type of player one is, etc. This is a tolerant region and we’ve built our community on such pillars. I’m not going to have an introduction thread turn into an all-out war. That’s for the gameplay side of things. That’s to be handled amongst ourselves and in organized efforts. Not like this. Not like this at all.
Again, we preach a doctrine of tolerance and acceptance. We’ve been doing that before any ponies came on the TV, too.