Well that's fair. I think the kings of Loire disagree though, particularly when it comes to heathens/heretics, just because a death is regrettable doesn't mean good can't come out of it, and in this case the good is both political AND metaphysical.
Children of the Fatherland: MP conversion game
- Thread starter King of Men
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well that's fair. I think the kings of Loire disagree though, particularly when it comes to heathens/heretics, just because a death is regrettable doesn't mean good can't come out of it, and in this case the good is both political AND metaphysical.
Are we to understand that you consider murder to be equivalent to war, or vice-versa? In that case I'd like to ask why Loire considers itself at liberty to commit acts of war in Roman territory. Acts of war which benefit an infidel, at that. So we have deliberately killing children, treason against Christendom, and waging war on the Senate and the People of Rome; the crimes and very bad ideas are piling up.
As for the counter-invasion of Croatia, a Just War in that it was waged in defense against unprovoked aggression and with the aim of preventing future conflict, some of us have standing armies with a concept of discipline, which flog looters and behead rapists. Those who muster feudal levies, consisting of men whose chief claim to nobility lies in riding a noble beast, need not open their mouths to bemoan the sins that armies are prey to; our citizens know them all too well.
As for the counter-invasion of Croatia, a Just War in that it was waged in defense against unprovoked aggression and with the aim of preventing future conflict, some of us have standing armies with a concept of discipline, which flog looters and behead rapists. Those who muster feudal levies, consisting of men whose chief claim to nobility lies in riding a noble beast, need not open their mouths to bemoan the sins that armies are prey to; our citizens know them all too well.
But if that war could have been averted with a single death would that have been more just? When Loire killed that child he averted the great war that surely would have followed, saving thousands if not tens of thousands of lives. Should you not thank him for saving your people from such calamity? For truly the people your 'senate' purports to represent are much relieved that they now will not have to suffer the many horrors of war for their indifferent masters belligerent greed.
Ehh? Murder and war are two different beasts, it is you who is drawing that equivalency. I'm not sure what you are getting at. You said that child killing is always child killing. I'm making the distinction here, you are conflating. So don't try and act as if my argument is trying to conflate the two notions. You said it yourself:
KoM said:
My point is that it isn't so simple nor so clear cut. You yourself have had children killed, we know all about the atrocities committed by the Bulgarian troops against Croat villages. So where is this bright line now?
And look, if you wish to make simple declarations, by all means go ahead, but at least have the grace to admit that you can't argue any more. The assumption that Loire views murder and war as the same thing is entirely missing the point and seems like a deliberate misread.
As well, treason against Christendom? At least the heathens don't pretend to be Christ's followers. Heretics are all the more dangerous for their perverted beliefs. We accept no man as follower of Christ without submission to Rome and an orthodox understanding of the world.
You know Croatian propaganda, and swallow it whole.
If arguing is going to come down to who has the stamina to present his arguments one more time... then yes, consider me out. I have given the arguments that compel me to act as I do, as have you. If neither of us finds the other's argument convincing, then we must either agree to disagree, find a third-party arbitrator, or settle the issue with swords. In discourse it is no victory merely to have the last word; victory is when your opponent has the last word, and says "you are correct". There is no profit in merely repeating arguments already made as though they were fresh and new, and I shall not do so; if you wish to rehash what's already been said, that is your affair. As for me, I shall leave vengeance to the Lord.
We are very much the followers of the teachings of the prophet Isa.
As we are sure he will deliver it unto you.
Well I was trying to nicely find a way to say that you should have the grace to admit defeat and not come back arguments of undiscernable value, but I guess that didn't work. The point is, you Bulgarians aren't arguing in good faith or really making an argument at all. Rather it is huge overreaches in assumption about my position as well as dismissals and appeals to 'truth'. Which is fine, just call a spade a spade and don't prevaricate about it.
the weird thing is...even though we (players and peanuts alike) all think it is selfevident that the deliberate killing of a child is evil, and always has been evil..that is historically not so....different times, different societies..actually thought-provoking and sobering, kindof...
And I will hear and obey, oh Overlord!
And I will hear and obey, oh Overlord!
Last edited:
How about the one that goes, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."?
I would, if I thought myself defeated. When I merely find that my argument has not convinced one who has all sorts of reasons not to be convinced, and that his arguments are mere rationalisations of sin, then I shrug and go on to more useful activities. Or do you perhaps intend to concede defeat, on the grounds that you have not convinced me? If not, then admit at least the basic symmetry of our positions: We both find the other's position unconvincing. This is not defeat, it is the default state of arguers. If you like, you can suggest a neutral third party who will judge who had the better argument; or we can try it with swords; or we can agree to disagree, and leave the issue alone. Do you see a fourth option?
Such ad hominems! The Calipha can carry no guilt for Greek lives lost at the hands of Finns, Croats, Varangoi and French.
As far as the morality goes let us put it in terms even infidels understand, an evil is an evil, and a necessary evil is necessary.
Well the point isn't necessarily to convince the other, but you have not even argued, merely offered bland attacks on the discussion itself by calling it 'rationalization' and acting as if the truth were so self-evident that anyone who disagreed with you was on the other side of the bright line. Defeat in that you have yet to truly defend yourside. It may be because you feel unconvinced bit it certainly is for lack of trying. So what? Well give it up gracefully and admit you don't care. That's fine, but don't then act as if it is a huge moral outrage to have children assassinated.
I gave plenty of arguments. If you're too far gone to recognise one when it bites you in the ass, that's not my fault.
Once we destroy that one ring your power will dwindle, Mordor.
It is already sent to Sicily to be burnt in the Mount Etna.
The sole reason why it still exists is that we decided the best means for transportation is a midget walking. But he will arrive eventually.
Uhh, it is your fault when those arguments consist of "this argument is too tortured. I can't answer"
Sorry, I'll use shorter words next time. How about "you no make sense"? That's one syllable all the way. I was trying to find a diplomatic way of calling bullshit; I see I needn't have bothered.
Last edited:
Bullshit eh? Harsh words from the Byzantines who refuse to discuss in any depth the issue at hand. Look, I'm not saying you shouldn't be dismissive and not actually argue a point, but admit it and don't pretend to be making a point or arguing. I can appreciate the moral gumption it takes to say "I've made up my mind, I don't care as to reality" but hiding it behind a pretense of the higher ground is at best a naive view of the situation.
I'm not saying I have the best grasp on this argument, its kinda weak I admit, but certainly the kingdom of the Loire believes some of it. If you don't want to make the effort to have a discussion just say so. Clearly a fun but convoluted argument is too 'byzantine' for you.
