Sea

Nah, because "no comment" isn't commenting on the issue; it's an acknowledgement that whatever was said was heard.

Maybe you should do those push ups.

r00d. Besides, we had Cromwell/Goodly/morts1, but he ended up leaving P&W for reasons that weren't too clear to me. And I'll always be here to defend the name of our alliance.

What would I do it about? I need content to rant about first. It's an intolerance of single-worded CBs, not 3+ syllable CBs. And I'm honestly unsure of who I might be trying to imitate.

Well, shit. This is annoying. Now then, on to the far more important thing. DEFINITION TIME "Pacifism is a commitment to peace and opposition to war. Our ordinary language allows a diverse set of beliefs and commitments to be held together under the general rubric of pacifism. This article will explain the family resemblance among the variety of pacifisms. It will locate pacifism within deontological and consequentialist approaches to ethics. And it will consider and reply to objections to pacifism. The word “pacifism†is derived from the word “pacific,†which means “peace making†[Latin, paci- (from pax) meaning “peace†and -ficus meaning “makingâ€]. Pacifism in the West appears to begin with Christianity. Perhaps the most famous use of the word pacifism is found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), where Jesus claims that the “peacemakers†are blessed. In this passage, the Greek word eirenopoios is translated into Latin as pacifici, which means those who work for peace. The Greek eirenopoios is derived from the Greek eirênê [peace] in conjunction with poiesis [to make]." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/ 1. opposition to war or violence of any kind. 2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs. 3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pacifism 1: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds 2: an attitude or policy of nonresistance https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pacifism the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+pacifism ON TO THE ISSUE So. Fighting Pacifists. Is that an oxymoron? (I'm not defining fighting because if you don't know what that means you're beyond hope.) Stanford's philosophy dictionary would say no, as one can still engage in something that they oppose. Additionally, we still have a commitment to peace, as we still want peace and aren't warmongering twats unlike Lord A-A-ron. Dictionary.com's definitions pose only a problem with #2, as 1 is the same as above, and 3 is something we want but clearly something that won't happen. (Declaring war because of an oxymoron rather than asking for clarification shows your incompetence at diplomacy.) Merriam-Webster's Dictionary also has a similar case for us, with opposition being violateable, considering you declared war on us. #2 provides a problem, again. And Google's definition -- this war is unjustifiable. It's absolutely stupid. This could have been settled peacefully. So. Back to the the two #2s. Together, they say that pacifism is an act of refusal to engage in military activity due to beliefs, and that it's an attitude OR policy of nonresistance; that is, not fighting. And, many arguments: 1. More definitions lean to an opposition rather than outright refusal. 2. The first part of the definition has to do with an individual, not a nation, as a nation has overall principles but still has to engage in military activity of some kind, even if that activity is being curbstomped by another army, as that IS military. 3. We have an attitude of nonresistance but still will fight. 4. The entire definition has to do with the individual, as a nation only exists through resistance. Without resistance, nation becomes Somalia. Additionally, geography resists people and geography is part of a nation. 5. The game's mechanics literally have resistance, therefore we have to dismiss an impossible definition. Now then. Organizations can't completely enforce ideals upon their members, however hard they try. (See: Martin Luther and that entire Reformation thing.) As long as one nation does not resist, the name is true. And, just like any other organization, we don't embrace all forms of it. Most people love democracies, but won't accept a democratic form involving only 20 people of an entire nation (Or say, security, but not Big Brother-esque surveillance.) We embrace a policy of non-aggression and diplomacy before hostile and violent action is taken. We want to negotiate for peace rather than fight it out to see who gets what. In short, we embrace pacifism. Not ultra-hardcore pacifism, but pacifism nonetheless. TL;DR It's not an oxymoron you !@#$wit! Nonresistance pacifism applies to the individual, not the state; there are many forms of pacifism, you can't say the US isn't democratic because it's not a direct democracy, it's just slightly less than one. Plus, we still oppose war and think it's unjustifiable, but when something is started by another, it's not like we have a choice on participation. Finally, on fighting: Fighting could be debate and therefore non-violent. Even if it is violent, it's in reference to our willingness to fight in order to preserve our future peace and preserve our ability to negotiate. Concessions have to be made in order to preserve future value. Thanks for reading, I know this is an absurd amount of text, but I'm bored and can't sleep.

Holy hell, I've volunteered for the peace deal. It does need to be kept secret for now, but I think it's fully doable and a good way to end this.

Ah, that clears it up. Sorry for my confusion.

It's from IRL stuff, not war stuff. Besides, he wasn't the one that made the decision. Vote implies that the alliance decided, if that was unclear.

See my previous post, where I said I support the peace. And I (hopefully) am obviously joking. TFP is losing pretty hard and we've been beat down heavily. Cromwell/Goodly deleted his nation today, along with two others. Still, the vote has been to fight on, so I'll continue to fight on.

Yes, waste your money on us please. We'll win by attrition and perseverance. At some point you'll get bored with curbstomping us, and at that point, we will win.

ITT: Terminus Est pretends to modify the status quo by claiming "occupation." In reality, this free raiding is already what's going on in the status quo. Nonetheless, good honor grab TEst, good honor grab. I for one do like the offered flag, but it's clear that we've decided to go for the long "haul." I mean, one thing we've proven ourselves extremely good at is semi-suicidal tendencies. As such, I do plan to rearm back up to 2k for the lulz alone. This is fun, if rather painful. Besides, I've got a long ways to go if I want to be the leader for most of my own infra destroyed by attackers.

I mean, there's not much to talk about. We (TFP) have been beat up pretty hard, so much that the salt has precipitated out of solution and can't flow. Sorry that we can't shitpost this thread to victory over the Rose surrender. We have salt to clean from the fields, eh?

. But it's rather tempting and delicious bait. Shame I'd get completely wrecked if I went for it.

We'll see I guess. So far so good.

Hi, forum scrub here. Teach me about Dioism, as I have no idea what that is.

This thread is definitely worth it all on its own. plsnoattackamgoodboypls

Suggesting we'll learn, hidude? Seabass-In my defense, I thought the war would end, so there was no reason to keep the war going on. I did deal about 700 infra damage on the nation I attacked, so at least I did do something.

You've already fought me once. :/

Off-topic, what program do you guys use to make the flags? Which then entails the second question, how? You guys a pretty good at making flags, so am jelly. I mean, Amentia would make a pretty legit alliance flag, if it wasn't for the fact that y'know... The Fighting Pacifists generally isn't about that shit, so it'd be a bit contradictory. (No arguing about the definition of pacifism or any other shit, mmk?) And for the peace offer: The general consensus is that we like the heat of the flames. The majority of our members are well below your war range, so it's just been an issue of many of us (me included) being willing to take a lot of damage. No pixel hugging here, just pixel burning for warmth and sustenance.

I mean, it's the verb. So yes.

Thanks, now I'm building up to be a proper ankle-biter. But seriously, thanks for not completely killing me. As for the no peace--general consensus seems to be that we don't want peace. I can't obviously speak for my alliance as I'm just a member, but... it's how it is. We'll die fighting, I guess.

Paper alliances are the worst. There is too much to burn when you have paper. Sadly, airplanes apparently do melt steel ships. What I find rather interesting is that we (The Fighting Pacifists) have dropped 30k points and are still in the top 15 alliances.Some real point disparity with the upper alliances, I guess. That's all I've got to comment on, as ideologies are stupid to argue about as no one will change sides. Although it's really painful watching my cities drop in infrastructure. I've lost 2,252.91 infra to Wrathaz/El Commander (He was also 1000 points above me at the start of this, so that was fun.) and another 1379.26 to Evenstar/Thalmor. Feels bad man, getting hit by nations with way more cities than you have. It's what it is though. Good job TEst.

So uh, sorry about the salt some of us have. Some of us are putting up a fight, so that's a thing. We're now down 20k score, I'm pretty impressed, good job I guess? (Not really, pls stop the kill)

The alliance title is a bit contradictory, I suppose. The real shame is that we don't (and also didn't) have a particularly strong top tier. Anyway, congratulations on bringing us down 10,000 points so far. Hopefully we'll start to fare better.

Nation Name: The Grand Confederacy Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=28156