It’s always more interesting with multiple entries.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, the common goal is to mock one specific person.
Fortunately, that specific person had it coming.
4 Likes
Most of us here have been at the receiving end of unwarranted vitriol from this person.
1 Like
Which is why she had it coming.
2 Likes
And I will be frank, I am glad to see good humour stand triumphant.
3 Likes
Please excuse me that I haven’t replied earlier. I have talked about these things in many other threads before, so I will try to be brief.
Sexuality - it is quite base animalistic desire of humans to reproduce. In civilized society we should discuss instead marriages, and what happens inside marriages behind closed doors, shall stay behind closed doors. The biological process itself is quite revolting and bringing the associated details on public is degrading. We are not animals, we are humans, and shall behave as ones!
Democracy - is one of the most archaic and less efficient managing systems. Probably the best argument against it would be a five minute talk with a random voter. Comparing democracy with more efficient and self-sufficient systems I could make a conclusion that democracy actually degrades the society.
Freedom - in physics it is a state where parts of the system have no bonds between each other and stay in complete disarray as opposition to the Order. What happens in the society though when you separate bonds? But first of all, we should consider, what are bonds in human society. They are laws. Regulations. Orders. Codes. Morals. Love. Friendship. Loyalty. Cut all these and you will get lawless anarchy - complete degradation.
Individualism - it implies that members of the society work predominantly for just themselves instead of others and common good. If members of the society work mostly for the society - yes, at first they will live worse than society built of individualists, but eventually the society will grow stronger and wealthier, and all participants will become wealthier and will be living better. Counterwise, in society with individualists, they live better from the start, but they take everything from the society instead of giving, and eventually society’s resorces deplete. They start fighting each other, demanding and taking more and more, eventually turning into poor violent savages. In other words, a complete degradation of the society and all these individuals.
And finally - hedonism. I am not really sure why I should explain why hedonism is degrading. I can’t find better examples of degradation than individuals, dedicated to pleasing themselves.
D. Kim, Strike Commander,
State Protectorate, CMC,
Caldari State
1 Like
Marriage is an unnecessary and parochial artifact of the dark, uncivilized periods in most cultures’ history when women were treated as chattel, to be secured by men so that inheritance rights would remain clearly defined and tracked. If two people wish to make an exclusive commitment to one another, that’s fine, but it’s not better or worse a choice than not doing so, or committing to a tro, quartet, or other arrangement so long as all of the participants consent to it.
Society is, in fact, a result of people working predominantly for themselves. We cooperate because it is the most effective way to secure what we need for ourselves. Competition only creates dangers.
You, Diana Kim, are a hedonist. Your particular flavor of hedonism is the visceral thrill and adrenaline rush of combat. You relish it. You seek it out. You claim you ‘hate this life’ but you eagerly run toward something to kill at every chance. You seek out the violence that gives you pleasure, with wild abandon. You are a hedonist.
And you sign your posts.
8 Likes
And I will, in fact, drop a quote to back up that third part:
4 Likes
Eugh. Utilitarianism is a scourge.
1 Like
There is nothing wrong with being self-sacrificing in the name of the good of the greater community.
2 Likes
c’mon, daddy needs a new supercap!
Jorge Stanton
That guy
Space Dandies
Captain of a tempest
Explores in a Navitas
Send me isk?
owner of the only combat fit nereus
#YEET
how long is a signature supposed to be?
About this long?
The prize isn’t a super. Also the signature thing is for Mizhara’s contest.
2 Likes
This thread has been cleaned of inappropriate content.
While miss Kim may not be winning any popularity contests among the denizens of the Intergalactic Summit any time soon, this does not warrant breach of Communications Relay Committee policy.
The original purpose of this thread is legitimate, and it will be treated as such by the CRC.
Do not breach the rules.
2 Likes
Considering THE MAN has deemed quite a few entries to Mizhara’s competition (my own included) as unsuitable for this forum, should we perhaps mail them directly to our Judge?
7 Likes
Well, I lost one entry but my bingo is still there.
2 Likes
Well, part of the contest rules is that submissions have to follow the CRC guidelines for this place, but allright. I’ll also accept entries sent directly to me if they have been publicly on display for the same kind of audience as this board. I’ll leave it up to the contestants to interpret this, but my suggestions would be the various live-communication Summits, and so on.
Remember, this is for the community to gather around, spreading joy and laughter to all.
Have edited the original contest rules to reflect this change. Public display remains a requirement, but choice of venue is up to you.
3 Likes
So! Seeing as our political discussion is clearly within bounds per the CRC, let’s address this. You happened to sidestep responding when I brought proof you were mistaken, after all.
Kim, five of eight Megacorporations have stations in Gallente space, and no doubt all engage in business in the Federation. Six of eight Megacorporations voted to reopen the borders for Baseliner traffic, which indicates that open borders with the Federation are the normal state of affairs, and this is approved of by the CEP.
You are provably wrong in saying that only Ishukone deals with the Gallente.
5 Likes
I wonder when you will start reading the links you post yourself.
the CEP confirmed in the announcement that there are no intentions at this time to re-establish diplomatic contact with the Federal government, or re-open any State Embassies or consulates.
Of course I personally disagree with decision to let baseline traffic through, since during the war time it is an enormous security risk, but, unfortunately, I am not a Megacorp CEO to affect it in any way. All we have to do is grit our teeth, hold weapons harder and shoot all the enemies, expecting them appearing from behind. After all, we are professionals, and we can do our job… even if CEP makes it harder for us.
And still, returning to Ishukone. The war is a war, and it is emphasized by the statement that there are no diplomatic contacts with the enemy. Separate treaties are usually frowned upon by former allies, or in this case - by other corporations. Besides, attempts at making international treaties bypassing the CEP (I mean Ishukone-Gallente treaties) is insulting to the CEP as well and undermines their authority, just as making treaty with enemy while the rest are fighting is insulting to all who are Caldari.
Except that you’ve disproven nothing.
Sure, diplomatic relations are still frosty. But a full half of the big eight aside from Ishukone have assets in the Federation. Over half of the big eight aside from Ishukone voted to re-open the State’s borders, which both says that the borders being open is the normal state of affairs, and that a supermajority of the State’s megacorporations favor open borders.
You are on record as saying that ‘all enemies of the State MUST DIE,’ which implies that your view of what may be done with an enemy is, uh, narrow. Thus, you are clearly mistaken.
Edit; ah, you were editing your post while I was writing mine. It changes nothing.
Furthermore, each Megacorporation has the freedom to make such deals as each one sees fit, which is a cornerstone of State political philosophy.
Lastly, I find it deeply entertaining that you are concerned about Ishukone’s supposed (by you) insult to the CEP, when you yourself deride the CEP’s statements the moment they so much as imply something you disagree with.
6 Likes