Saru Posted October 26, 2014 Author Share Posted October 26, 2014 I can already tell this thread will be golden. It's not semantics and maybe you don't even know what that word means or the context it's used in. If some UPN/DEIC members would face reality then we could move on to something more interesting. Seems to me like you are the one who needs his memory refreshed. Semantics; "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them." I'm fairly sure the only people bothered about them being aggressive are themselves. I love all the people saying can you please stop discussing the issue. It's alliance politics and this is an issue you guys are clearly embarrassed about, why would we stop discussing it its hilarious. If you wanted to keep on discussing the issue then you could of found the relevant threads where previous posts on the topic were made. It would help the intellectual discourse ( if you can call it that, at this stage.) No need to derail yet another topic. And embarrassed about what? The matter is trivial and virtually of no consequence to us. So I'll have my last say on this matter. Whether you view TAC as the aggressors or not is irrelevant -- and for the sake of argument, let's say I conceded that point. What matters is that the pre-emptive strike was reactive to TAC's plot and with very valid justification. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) Seems to me like you are the one who needs his memory refreshed. Semantics; "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them." Someones got his google bookmarked! Lol, you still think you understand how that word is used. You are persistent bro. tom(ai)to tom(aw)to - aggressive defensive. See the difference? Let it go man. Edited October 26, 2014 by Placentica Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 26, 2014 Author Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) Someones got his google bookmarked! Lol, you still think you understand how that word is used. You are persistent bro. tom(ai)to tom(aw)to - aggressive defensive. See the difference? Let it go man. You are making yourself look like an idiot, given that you are objectively wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute -- Read. In this particular case it was the definition of aggressor, in the context of a war in this game, and operating with the idea that one of the parties are a defendant. So I will reiterate: Whether you view TAC as the aggressors (*hint* this is the semantic dispute) or not is irrelevant -- and for the sake of argument, let's say I conceded that point. What matters is that the pre-emptive strike was reactive to TAC's plot and with very valid justification. Edited October 26, 2014 by Saru Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterbake Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Did Placentica just get schooled? getting schooled Losing a contest/game/battle/argument in a humiliating fashion while the other person shows you how it is done. They remain as cool as a cucumber as if it didn't even require effort on their part. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDkykbBIJxI&feature=youtu.be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Well that's an embarrassing. EoS preemptively attacks TAC then has to call in backup. Good job. You assume a call was made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 EoS got beaten and crying to The Covenant. That's hilarious ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 To be fair I think this was probably the plan all along, they just pulled it off in a really shitty way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooohu Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Cut the !@#$ already and call this for what it is. You're protecting your allies who're assets to your greater aspirations... seeing them dismantled would only weaken your future position and so you're doing the logical thing and protecting them. There is nothing ignoble in doing that but contorting and contriving to make it something more then that just makes you look bad to anyone with half a brain. I understand people have an obsession with taking the moral high-ground in order to justify a conflict, but there isn't anything more justifiable then power. So don't be afraid to embrace what you are in this world... every story needs their villains. So enjoy the war and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) You are making yourself look like an idiot, given that you are objectively wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute -- Read. In this particular case it was the definition of aggressor, in the context of a war in this game, and operating with the idea that one of the parties are a defendant. So I will reiterate: UPN name calling, awesome man. It's not semantics. This is a case of spin, not semantics. You are trying to paint it as a case of semantics, but it is not, lol. So before you start the petty name-calling, go re-read what I said. We both agree on the terms like "aggressors" or "aggression" and "defense" in their pure form. And that's what you have to do in a semantic dispute, to resolve it. If you defined both words in their pure form, unrelated to Orbis, I'm sure I'd agree with you. So it's not semantics, sorry to bring you back to reality. Lol, to prove my point, the link you sent me....I completely agree with it's definition of the term "semantic dispute". And besides all that, similarly, it's used in a more general form to be when two parties pretty much same the same thing, with different words. In this case, we are saying 100% opposite of what you are trying to claim. You've heard people say, "Oh it's just semantics, we basically agree". We do not basically agree and it's silly to even try to suggest that as you are doing. I never thought we'd have to have an English lesson from the wiki/urban dictionary fanboys. Jokes on me for responding to your post when you are just going to resort to name calling though. So +1 for you, well done. Edited October 26, 2014 by Placentica Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kappa Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 EoS got beaten and crying to The Covenant. That's hilarious ! You assume that this was suppose to be 1v1 to start off with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 You assume that this was suppose to be 1v1 to start off with... Are you saying that UPN, EoS, and DEIC planned to dogpile TAC all along? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kappa Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Are you saying that UPN, EoS, and DEIC planned to dogpile TAC all along? Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Are you saying that UPN, EoS, and DEIC planned to dogpile TAC all along? I'm not too surprise if that's what really happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenages Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Eh. I don't have a problem with dogpiles, just poorly executed ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Normally when there's a dogpile its because they want something though, what's the endgame here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scatheold Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Normally when there's a dogpile its because they want something though, what's the endgame here? To knock out the contender for the #1 slot. It's good to be on top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 So when they're number one they're planning to offer peace? Just out of interest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kappa Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 You're thinking too hard... war is fun and for some others, beneficial. We're totally altruistic, I swear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I honestly can NOT eye-roll enough for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 So why did you even bother lying about the two UPN who jumped the gun? Integrity is complete #*@&*@#! Congrats on making EoS look completely inept for attacking TAC. I didn't lie, they should never have done that and I never said we weren't going to attack TAC. Honestly, only a fool would think TC had no intention of joining. However, it seems it was foolish to think that TAC's allies would help them. Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterbake Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I never thought we'd have to have an English lesson from the wiki/urban dictionary fanboys. Jokes on me for responding to your post when you are just going to resort to name calling though. So +1 for you, well done. I accept your apology. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDkykbBIJxI&feature=youtu.be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 26, 2014 Author Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) We both agree on the terms like "aggressors" or "aggression" and "defense" in their pure form. And that's what you have to do in a semantic dispute, to resolve it. If you defined both words in their pure form, unrelated to Orbis, I'm sure I'd agree with you. So it's not semantics, sorry to bring you back to reality. Lol, to prove my point, the link you sent me....I completely agree with it's definition of the term "semantic dispute". And besides all that, similarly, it's used in a more general form to be when two parties pretty much same the same thing, with different words. In this case, we are saying 100% opposite of what you are trying to claim. You've heard people say, "Oh it's just semantics, we basically agree". We do not basically agree and it's silly to even try to suggest that as you are doing. The key here is that we're not talking about terms in their abstract form, because there is a context to it, and it's that context which is making things blurred and causing people to misinterpret me. When we're discussing who the defendant is in this conflict, it is very much a matter of semantics, (OOC: just in the same way if you were arguing if Obama is a socialist) -- trying to argue that it is not, is making you look silly, because you're arguing against tautology (which is surprising given that you said you agree with the definition.) Anyway I will reiterate yet again, because you seem to be ignoring me. Our differing opinions on the definition of defendant/aggressor in the context of this war, are actually inconsequential. The key and underlying point of my proposition is that the pre-emptive strike was reactive to TAC's plotting and had valid justification -- is that something you ultimately disagree with? Normally when there's a dogpile its because they want something though, what's the endgame here? The endgame, at least from my perspective, is to nullify the threat that set out to hurt us and our allies. Nothing more, nothing less. Edited October 26, 2014 by Saru 1 Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Clooney Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I honestly can NOT eye-roll enough for this. Careful, you'l get a headache. But I am curious what your problem is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 The endgame, at least from my perspective, is to nullify the threat that set out to hurt us and our allies. Nothing more, nothing less. You've put a lot of effort into nullifying the perceived threat against you. What will you have to achieve to feel that the threat is nullified? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 26, 2014 Author Share Posted October 26, 2014 You've put a lot of effort into nullifying the perceived threat against you. What will you have to achieve to feel that the threat is nullified? That's entirely dependent on the assurances TAC and the others can provide, when they sit down with us, and our confidence in those claims. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.