Supposition has its place in an argument, so long as it’s accepted as just supposition, and is either in absence of or at least not contrary to proper fact. One could even call it an untested theory.
2 Likes
Nope, I value my life enough to not risk such an encounter. And you’re entirely right that it could all be propaganda. But at some point, it is reasonable to place trust in the assertions of a trusted body (in this case, international coverage). It absolutely could be entirely propaganda. But it’s no different than my trusting the Earth is in fact round. I’ve never seen it from orbit so I can’t conclusively say. But I can say that based on the arguments provided, I have a high confidence that it is round.
2 Likes
personal opinion indeed have their place in an argument, however affirming your personnal opinion is a fact does not have its place in it. That’s why I asked source for this fact you affirmed.
That’s why I agree with your other points, they are just personal opinions of what is good for the game and expressed as such.
It’s not. It’s just a choice you make, nothing to do with absolutely reasonable. You are affirming this assumption is the only one reasonable. Maybe you could not stand the consequence of another choice, but other people can ? (I’m not saying I can.)
And that’s a choice.
Some people do think earth is round and still use flat earth tool (like maps). It’s not about people being right or wrong, it’s about people making useless/baseless claims.
The issue with flat earth people is that their model is worse than the round earth one. It’s not about them being right or wrong, it’s about their model’s implications being worse than a round earth one.
If we had a flat earth model that was more correct than the round earth one, we would use this one. Even with pictures of round or pyramidal earth or whatever. Science is a set of tools, we use the tool that is the more adequate to the job.
That would be my fault then, for improperly asserting (or appearing to assert) it as fact. They were all opinions.
1 Like
Oh man the comment about guns killing people explains a lot! Guns are a tool as is my Bump Machariel a tool purposed for enforcing the CODE.
Anyway, yeah just because you believe that the law shouldn’t pertain to you doesn’t mean it’s not a law. It may not hold value to you personally as a law, but again you will be held personally responsible for breaking them. If you have no qualms with being held accountable for something you don’t see any reason to hold as law, then I guess it doesn’t matter…
If you choose to kick and scream like a child it will just be that much more painful of an experience for you. Let me know if you understand this, as I’m a simple agent of The New Order… I’m not certified to educate those that would fall into an ESL category.
2 Likes
Just because you believe some random rule is a law does not mean it’s a law.
“law” has a definition, in HS the only law that applies to everybody is crimewatch.
everything else is just empty claims.
example : I here affirm that the law of new eden is that “CODE members are idiots”. Does it mean that “code members are idiots” is thus a law ? YOUR previous affirmation say so, while I personally affirmed that being in CODE is not being an idiot by law.
You are thus the one calling yourself an idiot, while I affirmed that only me going in CODE would make me an idiot (because I am the only one subject to that law)
Yet at the end of the day, you still choose to accept the argument. You haven’t validated it yourself. It’s fact, according to authorities you’ve decided to trust. The only way you yourself could truly validate it is by going into orbit, eliminating any possibility of tampering or lying.
The claims that the Earth are round are, according to flatters, baseless. They cite what they feel are justifiable arguments. They look at round earth arguments as weak. I’m not saying they’re right, but the shoes fit on both feet.
Unless you yourself go up into orbit and see the Earth is round, you’re trusting someone else’s assertion that it is.
A law is not an assertion, it is a declaration of what is or is not permissible. You could say “CODE is now illegal, you may not gank barges”. And you have every right to do that. But you will need to enforce your law for it to be relevant.
2 Likes
YOU can make experiment and decide by yourself which model is the more adequate.
Science is intrinsically wrong. Scientist is just a word for “being less and less wrong, as possible”. Scientists do not KNOW thing, they MODEL and then use the model that is the most adapted to their observations - until a better model comes.
No it does not. The round earth model is more accurate than the flat earth model. It is not “right” or “wrong”, it is “more accurate”
It will still be law, wether it is enforced or not.
Many laws are not enforced (because it costs too much).
This is a bad example. This is not enforceable therefore it couldn’t be a law. If you made a law that says “Everyone must have the words “code members are idiot” in their bio and if not we will destroy you as punishment.” THAT would be a law.
or
“If you are in CODE you are an idiot and if caught you will be bumped out of mining range.” that could be a law.
Saying someone is an idiot is an opinion.
To have a law you have to have an if-then statement and a police force willing and able to enforce it.
You’re absolutely right, science is absolutely “being less and less wrong, the more we learn”. But at some point a theory becomes a fact because conclusive proof is found. In this case, we can conclusively view that it is round. That’s not a theory, because you’re going from model to actual observation.
Based on your point of view.
Yes, it will be law. And you’re welcomed to make that law, just as CODE is welcomed to make theirs.
If you drive over the speed limit then you will get pulled over and arrested.
1 Like
To have a law, you need to have the statement apply to the members of the group which is governed by the law.
Telling CODE laws apply to people out of CODE is exactly as wrong as saying a personal opinion is a law. It just does not fit the definition.
CODE. members are the police force.
1 Like
The “Code” aka THE NEW HALAIMA CODE OF CONDUCT is the law.
2 Likes
If you break the Code, then a member of CODE. will come and shoot you.
1 Like
What ? dude I just told you I sometimes use the maps, which represent earth as flat, when I see it fit . It’s not about my point of view, it’s about my usage.
No, never. A theory is just a model that describes intercations. If it fits well then it’s used, until something better comes.
eg gravitation. Just because we have lots of data that all validate the gravitation theory does not mean the gravitation theory is fact. We learn it because it’s the most adequate tool we have(actually the most adequate tool that can be taught).
If flat earth theory is good enough to help me solve a problem with less issues than round earth, then why not ? It won’t make it fact. Just a tool. That’s why you need to say which theory you base your assumption on. People can make funny things with flat earth theory, even showing it’s inconsistent, but people can also do the same with round earth (because it’s not totally round), actually most theories can be used to show some inconsistency.
As far as i know, the correct term is racketeering.
You know, kind of what mobsters do. Mafia and consorten.
Code is a criminal organisation, that’s why their ships get destroyed by the rightfull police in highsec.
Btw.
Do you know, what the difference is between the mafia and the government?
The mafia is organized. 
3 Likes
The mafia does not get caught 
1 Like
A map is a projection that allows us to display the 3D object (or according to a flatter, a ‘2D’ object) in a 2D media. That doesn’t make it flat, nor does it provide support to or detract from either argument.
I initially used the DPRK as an example of “laws whether you agree with them or not”. You then countered by saying “maybe they do like the laws, you haven’t asked them so how can you know it’s not just lies”. I then countered by saying “at some point, you place enough trust in someone to declare them an authority on the subject and trust their arguments”. The flat/round earth argument is an illustration of the fact that the VAST majority of us to implicitly trust these people to assert it correctly. The direct observation is possible, technically, yet we still place trust in others.
Direct observation, actual confirmation, is common in science. Once something has been confirmed by direct observation, it’s not a theory anymore. The problem between flat/round earth is that the flatters do not trust the observations that others have claimed to make.
2 Likes