That’s hilarious!
Thanks for the laughs! I needed it today.
1 Like
I just love the semantic goobledegook and twisting. Napoleon lost precisely because couldn’t maintain his territorial occupation. You disingenuously omit the bit where the person has to not only occupy but keep on occupying.
The vast majority of nations on Earth have territorial boundaries defined by war. England would otherwise consist also of half of France…and America would have been primarily a French colony. The list is endless. That same Napoleon you refer to was forced to hand over almost 1/3 of today’s USA ( the Louisiana ‘purchase’ ) due to his inability to territorially control that piece of real estate as well. So to argue that there’s no victory in occupation of territory is about as absurd as it gets.
That is the true nature of war. It defines the states that exist. Why should war in Eve be any different ?
England is not a state.
The United Kingdom includes territories that were not conquered.
2 Likes
With regard to this point, although it is not worth my time to debate someone who refuses to listen, I will observe that the wardec system does not require anyone to maintain occupation. The war is automatically concluded once the war headquarters is destroyed, and it’s done. In contrast, Napoleon certainly reached Moscow and can be said to have destroyed the war headquarters, and yet this war did not end.
Of course, Napoleon failed to maintain territory, because he lost the war (despite occupying huge swaths of territory across much of Europe). However, since your objection (that one must occupy territory for a prolonged period of time) reflects a reality which is not modeled in EvE, your objection is entirely irrelevant and once again your own statements contradict your argument. Napoleon was defeated because his enemies continued fighting even after losing armies, capitals, and territory. Doesn’t this suggest that wardecs might also continue, even after one party has suffered such losses? Alas, you never seem to ask yourself, “What if I’m wrong? What objection might someone else raise?”
You fail consistently to engage in self-reflection or critical analysis. You simply post snarky “I’m right and everyone else is WRONG gotcha” polemics, as your goal isn’t to learn anything. You simply want to always be “right”. You want to convince others, but don’t want to be convinced. Unfortunately, you appear to derive some kind of pleasure from boasting about how everyone else is wrong, even when those people clearly have more experience. That’s not an attitude which encourages personal growth.
You also fail to understand the basic mechanics of an argument or debate, and repeatedly demonstrate the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium. The individual making a positive claim has the burden of proof. You are claiming that wardecs should end when the war headquarters is destroyed, whereas I am claiming they should not. Since you are making the positive claim, you are the one who must prove your theory, whereas others must logically assume you might be wrong.
How might you prove your hypothesis?
Well, the first step is actually to try and disprove it. That’s called critical analysis. Instead, you have merely cherrypicked a singular example, claiming that it proves your point. However, as I’ve said (are you even listening?) what you should do is look for an example which disproves your hypothesis, rather than one which supports it. I am seriously encouraging you to review the scientific method, and acknowledge that having developed a hypothesis, your goal should be to search for examples which contradict rather than reinforce your opinion. Unfortunately, applying this method will absolutely require you to criticize your own thoughts, and admit the possibility of error.
Ultimately, wardecs should reflect the reality of actual wars (such as the Napoleonic Wars), in which belligerents can continue to fight after the destruction of the war headquarters. Regardless, I hope you try to slow down and think, “What is this person actually saying, and is it possible that with so many people disagreeing with me, might I actually be incorrect? Can I try to predict their objections, before I post, in order to address those concerns in advance?” As I’ve said before, it’s quite clear you have a very big ego, bragging about this and that, boasting and puffing yourself up, and it seems you cannot theoretically consider the mere possibility that you might be wrong. That is an actual character flaw, and for your own benefit in life, you might want to listen more.
I’ve seen this pattern a number of times, so I really would urge you to take some time and just think about this. “Could I be wrong about something? Am I so focused upon the need to be right, that I never stop and question whether I am correct?”
Was there another Napoleon that you were referring to? Regardless, this is factually inaccurate, and (accurate or not) has no relevance.
2 Likes
Slow down buttercup, writing hasty replies is not an effective method of discussion, and you should spend more time thinking and less time rushing to respond.
2 Likes
You are wrong…and thus have nothing to ‘teach’.
War is about control…either of territory or population, and generally both. So the notion that territorial conquest does not determine the outcome of wars is just pure nonsense. Clearly, one can gain control without a shot being fired if the population of a region want your control over them. But by definition, the act of such submission entails the territorial region too. Simply citing cases where the ‘capital’ of some state was not taken is plain silly. The definition of victory is control, to the degree that the victor requires. But clearly the capture or destruction of capitals, structures, etc is not inconsequential…and neither should it be in Eve.
Lol⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
2 Likes
Sigh. My last response was actually written 3 hours ago and carefully edited and saved for an appropriate moment. You presume way too much…which is probably why you are wrong. It appears ALL you have in your arsenal is ad hominem…and not at particularly high DPS either.
How about taking your own advice.
Wow, you sure showed Aiko.
(Prepared 24 hours ago, scheduled send)
4 Likes
I mean that’s just weird. Instead of engaging in dialogue and responding to someone, this guy just drops random posts written in advance? This reminds me of what Governor Christie had to say to Marco Rubio.
You repeatedly conduct a drive by snark attack with incorrect facts, followed up by some prepared memorized argument which fails to connect with what other people have said. Silly, you’ve never been responsible for anything in EvE. What makes you think you are qualified to have such strong opinions, and reject the experience of those who have been there and gotten things done?
My guess is you just want to win, and don’t care about facts.
2 Likes
What kind of a silly semantic response is that ? Of course conflict can start up again. Many cases do. Just because there was a WW2 doesn’t mean WW1 had no outcome. Likewise, the fact that an alliance could wardec another till kingdom come does not mean each individual conflict has no outcome.
You keep thinking you can bamboozle with non sequiturs and just sheer word salad. I stand by my original comments, which were correct and remain so…ad hominem notwithsttanding.
Are you always this aggressive and belligerent when you talk to other people? I can’t imagine that this is how you act in the offline world. We’re discussing various concepts politely, yet you’re here calling everyone stupid and belittling them for not seeing it the way you do. We could explore the discussion more indepth, of course, but with how unpleasant your conduct is, I really don’t want to.
I’ll just give one last quip: We talked about a lot of examples and drew parallels from real wars to Eve. So allow me to throw you a curveball → What about Battlestar Galactica? I think this one is extremely fitting, are you familiar with the setting? In short, humanity is on the brink of extinction and has been reduced to a small flotilla of spaceships, having lost everything to a robot uprising. Now they’re on the run, and the only thing that stands between humanity and certain death is a single battleship, that’s Battlestar Galactica.
And I can’t imagine losing more war HQs than your entire civilization. There is literally nothing left but a few spaceships, fighting for their lives. But they don’t give up, and throughout the series they put up a hell of a fight. So this is the example that I want to leave you with, have a good one, everyone!
With stellar regards
-James Fuchs
3 Likes
Oh, well if you are struggling with reading comprehension, I honestly won’t help with that. I would suggest you hire a tutor.
2 Likes
Only when they are spouting complete nonsense.
We are ?? No-one seems to have told Aiko that. You might wish to look at who is really doing all the ’ calling everyone stupid and belittling them for not seeing it the way you do '.
1 Like
How bizarre that your example makes precisely my point and actually refutes Aiko. If the loss of their last piece of territory, their Battlestar, marks the end of the war and the loss of all…in what conceivable sense does that agree with Aiko’s…
It is wholly erroneous to conclude that wars end because of territorial occupation
I cannot imagine the sheer degree of semantic doublethink required not to see the point. Even your own example refutes the claim.
Why does the Galactica count as territory?
2 Likes
@Altara_Zemara Aiko has given many exemples of why you are wrong. Aiko has graciously taken the time to explain everything to you, with clear concise language that a 12yo would understand, long posts with nuances and exceptions… but you refuse to say these simple words: I may have hastily come to false conclusions. Your experience and clear knowledge of history show me that I may be very wong on this subject. Thank you for schooling me on such important historical facts. I will read further probably change my mind, once my bruised ego heals but no. You categorically refuse to admit that Aiko, Destiny, Io and James have far more experience with the game than you do.
Personally, I’d be ashamed. The fact that you are not say a LOT about you.
2 Likes
Let me tell you about hope…
This debate appears to have started on post 58, so I took it upon myself to conduct a brief survey, to see how many points each participant has scored (as defined by the number of hearts awarded).
- Aiko Danuja 43
- Destiny Corrupted 27
- Io Koval 15
- James Fucks 6
- Altara Zemara 4
- Aisha Katalen 2
- Qia Kare 2
- Princess Valloris 2
- Wesley Baird 1
- Bruno Warbear 1
- Iceacid Frostbear 0
When you place these in a piechart, grouped by the individual’s stance in this debate, the results look like this:
Clearly, Altara has won this argument. I must concede, as it would be silly to try and refute such overwhelming consensus.
3 Likes