Embassy of Lazarus + News

[Pierconium]

Thank you for once again comparing me with Nazis. Seems to be a running pattern. I didn’t bother to even read the rest of your tripe.

The fact that 1/3 of the Axis powers were Nazi was hardly the point, but I'm not at all surprised you deflected there because your argument is nonsensical.

No deflection. I’ve been clear. Perhaps you should learn the definition of hypocrisy:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /hypocrisy

‘A situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time.’

Your position is that the NPO seeking to destroy the culture and community of Lazarus is bad because destroying a community is bad (a position I agree with). Your position is also that since the NPO did those things it is therefore okay for us to destroy their culture and community. All I have stated is that this is a hypocritical position, because it is by definition.

I have not, as you have attempted to state elsewhere, said that any and all attacks on the Pacific are unjustified. I have stated the opposite. I completely understand the justifications for the supposed war, although I’m still awaiting its actual impact to start. What I do not understand is how anyone can reasonably not see the hypocrisy between the two positions outlined above. I don’t claim innocence for the Pacific, but seeking to destroy 15 years of community is different than waging ‘war’.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Your position is that the NPO seeking to destroy the culture and community of Lazarus is bad because destroying a community is bad (a position I agree with). Your position is also that since the NPO did those things it is therefore okay for us to destroy their culture and community. All I have stated is that this is a hypocritical position, because it is by definition.

I have not, as you have attempted to state elsewhere, said that any and all attacks on the Pacific are unjustified. I have stated the opposite. I completely understand the justifications for the supposed war, although I’m still awaiting its actual impact to start. What I do not understand is how anyone can reasonably not see the hypocrisy between the two positions outlined above. I don’t claim innocence for the Pacific, but seeking to destroy 15 years of community is different than waging ‘war’.

Regime change in the Pacific is the only way to eliminate the threat the NPO poses by depriving it of its base of operations in a Feeder.

The difference between what the NPO has done, and what the regions at war with the NPO are doing, is that no one provoked the NPO to attack Lazarus, or Osiris, or most of the other regions the NPO has attacked throughout its history. Indeed, every time the NPO attacked Lazarus, it was supposed to be Lazarus' treaty ally. On the other hand, the NPO has done plenty to provoke war. So the two examples are not equivalent, and there is no hypocrisy in pursuing justified war against the NPO to the only conclusion that makes sense for the security of the regions at war. Any outcome that leaves the NPO in place will just once again lead to more NPO aggression against other Feeders and Sinkers, as has been the case in the past when the NPO has promised reform. Without regime change, none of the regions at war -- especially Lazarus and Osiris -- can be truly secure.

[Pierconium]

Your position is that the NPO seeking to destroy the culture and community of Lazarus is bad because destroying a community is bad (a position I agree with). Your position is also that since the NPO did those things it is therefore okay for us to destroy their culture and community. All I have stated is that this is a hypocritical position, because it is by definition.

I have not, as you have attempted to state elsewhere, said that any and all attacks on the Pacific are unjustified. I have stated the opposite. I completely understand the justifications for the supposed war, although I’m still awaiting its actual impact to start. What I do not understand is how anyone can reasonably not see the hypocrisy between the two positions outlined above. I don’t claim innocence for the Pacific, but seeking to destroy 15 years of community is different than waging ‘war’.

Regime change in the Pacific is the only way to eliminate the threat the NPO poses by depriving it of its base of operations in a Feeder.

The difference between what the NPO has done, and what the regions at war with the NPO are doing, is that no one provoked the NPO to attack Lazarus, or Osiris, or most of the other regions the NPO has attacked throughout its history. Indeed, every time the NPO attacked Lazarus, it was supposed to be Lazarus' treaty ally. On the other hand, the NPO has done plenty to provoke war. So the two examples are not equivalent, and there is no hypocrisy in pursuing justified war against the NPO to the only conclusion that makes sense for the security of the regions at war. Any outcome that leaves the NPO in place will just once again lead to more NPO aggression against other Feeders and Sinkers, as has been the case in the past when the NPO has promised reform. Without regime change, none of the regions at war -- especially Lazarus and Osiris -- can be truly secure.

So when Aleisyr relinquishes the Delegacy in a couple of weeks I guess all the war objectives will be complete. Mission Accomplished! Good job.

[Wycliffe]

Was it hypocrisy when the Allies oversaw regime change following WWII?

Love you Cormac, but... yes. It absolutely was. The Soviet Union reached peak hypocrisy when they reorganized Eastern Europe in their image and installed Communist dictatorships in places like Poland and Hungary that were no better than the dictators from whom the people had just been liberated.

In general I think it's a bad idea to dig into historical analogy when debating gameplay.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Regime change in the Pacific is the only way to eliminate the threat the NPO poses by depriving it of its base of operations in a Feeder.

The difference between what the NPO has done, and what the regions at war with the NPO are doing, is that no one provoked the NPO to attack Lazarus, or Osiris, or most of the other regions the NPO has attacked throughout its history. Indeed, every time the NPO attacked Lazarus, it was supposed to be Lazarus' treaty ally. On the other hand, the NPO has done plenty to provoke war. So the two examples are not equivalent, and there is no hypocrisy in pursuing justified war against the NPO to the only conclusion that makes sense for the security of the regions at war. Any outcome that leaves the NPO in place will just once again lead to more NPO aggression against other Feeders and Sinkers, as has been the case in the past when the NPO has promised reform. Without regime change, none of the regions at war -- especially Lazarus and Osiris -- can be truly secure.

So when Aleisyr relinquishes the Delegacy in a couple of weeks I guess all the war objectives will be complete. Mission Accomplished! Good job.

The regime that needs changing is the NPO, not just the Delegate, as evidenced by the same conduct again and again under multiple Delegates.

None of this is new ground we're covering here.

[Myrth]

Regime change in the Pacific is the only way to eliminate the threat the NPO poses by depriving it of its base of operations in a Feeder.

By the same logic the NPO is within its rights to seek regime change in Lazarus to remove the threat of a power that seeks to "eliminate" us. Fortunately we're an enlightened sort in the NPO and won't rise to such aggressive posturing, instead preferring to seek peace through dialogue and diplomacy.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Regime change in the Pacific is the only way to eliminate the threat the NPO poses by depriving it of its base of operations in a Feeder.

By the same logic the NPO is within its rights to seek regime change in Lazarus to remove the threat of a power that seeks to "eliminate" us. Fortunately we're an enlightened sort in the NPO and won't rise to such aggressive posturing, instead preferring to seek peace through dialogue and diplomacy.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the primary reason Lazarus is at war with the NPO is the NPO has already attacked Lazarus 2-3 times.

[The Gilded Star]

This is kinda like kicking a dog half a dozen times, then one day later when you walk by it, the dog bites your leg. "But I wasn't kicking you this time!" Yeah, but you did kick it the other six times and the dog is tired of your crap now.

I suppose you could try to argue that the dog is the bad guy in this situation for being responsible for the most recent act of aggression, but I think most people are gonna blame the guy that kicked it half a dozen times first.

[Myrth]

By the same logic the NPO is within its rights to seek regime change in Lazarus to remove the threat of a power that seeks to "eliminate" us. Fortunately we're an enlightened sort in the NPO and won't rise to such aggressive posturing, instead preferring to seek peace through dialogue and diplomacy.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the primary reason Lazarus is at war with the NPO is the NPO has already attacked Lazarus 2-3 times.

I'd consider exposing their poor operational security a favour. How is it the old saying goes, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me two to three times, err....

[The Gilded Star]

I'd consider exposing their poor operational security a favour. How is it the old saying goes, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me two to three times, err....

And that's exactly why no one trusts the NPO anymore. They already got fooled once, so why would they let themselves get fooled again? You kind of hoisted yourself with your own petard there.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the primary reason Lazarus is at war with the NPO is the NPO has already attacked Lazarus 2-3 times.

I'd consider exposing their poor operational security a favour. How is it the old saying goes, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me two to three times, err....

Well, thank you for simultaneously validating my argument and undermining Pierconium's in just three sentences. That's a real talent.

[Myrth]

I'd consider exposing their poor operational security a favour. How is it the old saying goes, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me two to three times, err....

And that's exactly why no one trusts the NPO anymore. They already got fooled once, so why would they let themselves get fooled again? You kind of hoisted yourself with your own petard there.

Indeed, one would hope that they are now significantly less likely to be infiltrated by outside influences (actions disowned by the NPO, organised by individuals who have been excommunicated). I see no hoisting going on here.

[Aclion]

"Given their history Lazarus would be a fool not to be hostile to the NPO" Myrth

[Cormactopia Prime]

And that's exactly why no one trusts the NPO anymore. They already got fooled once, so why would they let themselves get fooled again? You kind of hoisted yourself with your own petard there.

Indeed, one would hope that they are now significantly less likely to be infiltrated by outside influences (actions disowned by the NPO, organised by individuals who have been excommunicated). I see no hoisting going on here.

Neither the New Lazarene Order coup nor the Task Force Lazarus subversion were individual initiatives. Aleisyr was explicitly involved in the latter.

[Myrth]

I'd consider exposing their poor operational security a favour. How is it the old saying goes, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me two to three times, err....

Well, thank you for simultaneously validating my argument and undermining Pierconium's in just three sentences. That's a real talent.

I fail to see your point, if indeed you were attempting to make one. Pierconium's observation was that it is hypocritical to claim that attempting to destroy a community is bad and then call for the destruction of another community. Nothing in the post you quoted either validates your argument or undermines Pierconium's.

[Myrth]

Indeed, one would hope that they are now significantly less likely to be infiltrated by outside influences (actions disowned by the NPO, organised by individuals who have been excommunicated). I see no hoisting going on here.

Neither the New Lazarene Order coup nor the Task Force Lazarus subversion were individual initiatives. Aleisyr was explicitly involved in the latter.

And Aleisyr will shortly no longer be delegate. So glad you're finally seeing how we've neatly resolved this.

"Given their history Lazarus would be a fool not to be hostile to the NPO" Myrth

"Lazarus would be foolish to allow themselves to allow themselves to be infiltrated a third (fourth?) time." - Myrth

Fortunately for all involved the enlightened NPO harbours no untoward intentions toward our fellow GCRs and as such this is something of a fuss over nothing.

[Unibot III]

Well, thank you for simultaneously validating my argument and undermining Pierconium's in just three sentences. That's a real talent.

I fail to see your point, if indeed you were attempting to make one. Pierconium's observation was that it is hypocritical to claim that attempting to destroy a community is bad and then call for the destruction of another community. Nothing in the post you quoted either validates your argument or undermines Pierconium's.

A prior record of illegitimate state aggression can be a legitimate justification for war.

The claim to contradiction falls apart when you recall that the New Pacific Order had no real just cause to infiltrate and occupy Lazarus. The same cannot be said for Lazarus and its allies with regards to a state government that has in a number of instances authorized and executed extensive unconscionable activity against Lazarus. That's where the parallel ends: justification.

[The Gilded Star]

I fail to see your point, if indeed you were attempting to make one. Pierconium's observation was that it is hypocritical to claim that attempting to destroy a community is bad and then call for the destruction of another community. Nothing in the post you quoted either validates your argument or undermines Pierconium's.

Pierconium's observation can be countered with the paradox of tolerance.

Fortunately for all involved the enlightened NPO harbours no untoward intentions toward our fellow GCRs and as such this is something of a fuss over nothing.

Something the NPO promised once before and reneged on. To quote yourself just a few posts ago, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...".

[Wycliffe]

ITT: Myrth simultaneously claiming that the NPO bears no ill will towards its sister GCRs, and also that we were foolish to trust the NPO in the first place when it comes to not subverting its sister GCRs.

[Reploid Productions]

ITT: Myrth simultaneously claiming that the NPO bears no ill will towards its sister GCRs, and also that we were foolish to trust the NPO in the first place when it comes to not subverting its sister GCRs.

Schrödinger's Myrth!

[Jar Wattinree]

ITT: Myrth simultaneously claiming that the NPO bears no ill will towards its sister GCRs, and also that we were foolish to trust the NPO in the first place when it comes to not subverting its sister GCRs.

Schrödinger's Myrth!

Laughter that simultaneously exists and does not exist?

[New Rogernomics]

ITT: Myrth simultaneously claiming that the NPO bears no ill will towards its sister GCRs, and also that we were foolish to trust the NPO in the first place when it comes to not subverting its sister GCRs.

I am just generally amused a single paragraph quoting an act and not making statement to it's truth or not, triggered the NPO and started a semantic argument over whether a region can declare war or not. At this rate, Gazette issues are going to be something to look forward to for the discussions in Gameplay alone.

[Pierconium]

ITT: Myrth simultaneously claiming that the NPO bears no ill will towards its sister GCRs, and also that we were foolish to trust the NPO in the first place when it comes to not subverting its sister GCRs.

I am just generally amused a single paragraph quoting an act and not making statement to it's truth or not, triggered the NPO and started a semantic argument over whether a region can declare war or not. At this rate, Gazette issues are going to be something to look forward to for the discussions in Gameplay alone.

No one was ‘triggered’ and no one has stated Lazarus can or cannot declare war. Lazarus can do as it sees fit. It doesn’t change the fact that the operative motives are hypocritical. Sorry.

I am just generally amused that some people think saying ‘NPO is bad’ and occasional RMB spam constitutes actually waging war. This illustrates a real lack of research. We’ve been dealing with petty annoyances like that forever. At least in the past the enemy also had real teeth.

Good luck with that.

[Yokiria]

I am just generally amused that some people think saying ‘NPO is bad’ and occasional RMB spam constitutes actually waging war.

I hope that every member of the NPO that sees you preaching the uselessness of propaganda well and truly believes what you have to say about it.

[Pierconium]

I am just generally amused that some people think saying ‘NPO is bad’ and occasional RMB spam constitutes actually waging war.

I hope that every member of the NPO that sees you preaching the uselessness of propaganda well and truly believes what you have to say about it.

How is that APC thing going, btw? Seems you had another internal squabble just yesterday.

No one in the NPO needs to believe me because it isn’t propaganda. They can simply continue to observe the opposition’s self destruction and lack of impact on the Pacific and know for themselves.