Conversation

Notices

  1. We need militarized knightly orders back. Fighting for a code of ethics rather than a faction. It'd also put more pressure on international diplomacy since there'd be armies out there who'd join the side that's on the right, rather than the one they're allied to. Countries would be forced to not attack others out of greed.

    Monday, 30-May-16 00:32:59 UTC from web
    • @nerthos wat, What sort of strange path did you come from?
      No one ever fought for a code of ethics in the history of HISTORY, they just claimed they did to justify their actions (either to others or themselves).
      also, armies that fight for who's on the right? that makes no Potato Knishesing sense, there is no such thing as right and wrong, it's always poor apples who fight for what they believe in, the winner gets to decide what's right, if the Nazis had won WW2 we'd all be grateful that the "Filthy Jews" were wiped out.
      And if countries were not attacking each other out of greed they'd be doing it out of some other petty reason, the 1st King of Portugal went to war against his mother kuz she got a new boyfriend and wanted to take Portugal back under Spanish rule.

      Monday, 30-May-16 00:54:55 UTC in context
      awlxaĺan likes this.
    • @zennx I like the idea of what I proposed to break away from exactly that.

      Monday, 30-May-16 00:57:39 UTC in context
    • @nerthos I won't work, you cannot determine what's right from wrong empirically, for a start.
      There are just WAY too many questions to be asked when one determines the morality of an action
      Is it wrong to kill? Even if it would have saved way more lives than you'd have lost? What if the people you'd have saved would have lived a combined inferior time than the person you've killed? Can remaining time be considered as a way to value a person's current worth?

      Monday, 30-May-16 01:09:15 UTC in context
    • @zennx We won't agree on this, you're a pragmatist and I'm an idealist.

      Monday, 30-May-16 01:16:23 UTC in context
    • @nerthos oh, batcave, I'm sorry I took it from the stand that you were ill-informed about the past, my bad.
      When you put it like that, yeah, I'd love to see a future where people stop acting like batcaveing pricks all the time and do decisions with other people's lives.
      It probably won't happen, kuz idiots seem to be magnetically inclined to occupy roles of power; still, it'd be great

      Monday, 30-May-16 01:55:38 UTC in context
    • @zennx it is because the idiots serk power to make them feel better with themselves

      Monday, 30-May-16 01:56:34 UTC in context
    • @zennx Hence why my solution is building entities of power that are ruled by ethical codes. That forces the pricks to mind what they do, as they're accountable.

      Monday, 30-May-16 01:58:46 UTC in context