Join the new world

A beam in your eye, wanker.

Nuff said.

Okay, not enough said.

I owe the government nothing, as I have already paid the fine, as specified by... YOU. And your statist friends.

Any political contest in Canada is decided by SVT and friendships, it has little to do with "who can best do the job" or whatever pretend notions of like kind.

As *I* owe "your government" no further monies, it is a moot point as to whether my 'associations' (ie The Crimson Order) should be funded by the same government. It is a different kettle of fish altogether, although the 'guilt' of one member has already been assuaged.

The High Ethical Standards, which you apparently desire so badly, can only be found in free and voluntary association, not forced (ie government/legal coerced) positions.

JOIN TNS. It is the only ethical high ground upon which to stand.

Oh yeah, and vote Rigour6 as Supreme Justice 🙂

People who perform objective functions shouldn't be ruled by those who hide in the subjective.

note: "Here are some questions to which there are no obvious right or wrong answers."

The answers are only obvious to those who aren't looking at alternatives. Maybe because they are sufficiently confident in the answers they have already - which is fine - or haven't the time/interest - also fine.

I'm actually interested in what the New Ethical Revolution is about. Hence an open mind, but not a feeble one, nor one which thinks that "you wanker" is persuasive or bright. And of course, 'tis not I who is preaching "high ethical standards" - that would be the people you suggest I join.

It may be that every political contest is, and will forever be, decided by SVT (strategic voting teams) and friendships. But then, what is the point of promoting an "ethical revolution"? And, you know, I think that was the point of this article.

Tem: as to your particular situation, i don't comment.

@Olivermellors; Before one can answer these questions first we must look at what could be argued a the most flawed section of our government. Are Laws are like swiss cheese at the best of times, most unethical and unmoral actions are not even against the law. With out the proper policies and procedures, one can not expect the system to be able to function fairly. We are in a country that punishes a thief as murderers and traitors get a slap on the hands.

It is time to tear apart the system and put it back together with the proper guidelines in place so that punishments are matched to the crimes and the procedures are in place so that we can follow the policies we creat.

The question I would ask is...would so many with a certain avatar be so concerned if the accused was not someone of their order? Would the outpouring of opinion and "calls to action" be just as heated?

I will say this, if this same specific group of people does not act the same way when it is NOT one of their own on the hot seat then I call two facedness.

Poor Tem. Guy just wants to get back into canada for good beer and maple syrup and instead he is hit with questions about ethics.

As for all the people with the same avatar, they seem to be showing a lot of solidarity. Stick up and defend your guy becasue he is your guy. This is something that I think is missing in eCanada. We appear to be more fractional in everything we do.

Support your own, whether it be a black gear on a red background or a red maple leafe on a field of snow bound on either side by the blood of those who fought for it.

P. Magee

which brings us back to the suggestion that all is presently just a matter of strategic voting teams and friendships. (not my suggestion btw).

I note with interest that, if this is true, the exception is the Court where bonds of friendship count for little when a party appears before it.

I note also that if the written system of laws is flawed, it is perhaps a good thing to use judicial principles, consistently applied, to extend and rationalize it a bit. Raging against that, seems to me contrary to the stated purpose of the TNS revolution.

However, I remain very open minded and anxious to see the concrete details of the new ethical direction. It will have its growing pains - that is natural.

That's a cheap shot Acacia. The order are a small group of players who are loyal to each other yes, but were originally drawn together by common interests and a shared spirit. That is healthy.

Question the integrity of groups who are together strictly for power, status or cultural dominance. You are more likely to find multiple faces.

Temujin is awesome. I've seen him do a lot more for eCanada than this olivermellows wank. Also, subjectivity will always be part of the court. Applying law is always based on interpretation. Lastly, what ethical revolution? The ruling class in this game are just as cut throat, clicky, and unfit to govern even the cooking of a pizza pocket as they always were.

"The question I would ask is...would so many with a certain avatar be so concerned if the accused was not someone of their order? "

i find it interesting and hypocritical that you say that acacia since you are obviously coming to defend one of your fellow justices.

FURTHERMORE, i find it contemptuous that the Justices continue to rip at the carcass of this long dead decision/discussion in an attempt to hurt temujinBC by any means necessary including attacking the crimsons when in fact the reason for their embarrassment and anger is their own stupidity in the first place (by which i mean their erroneous Judgement order) which has ultimately resulted in the rest of eCanadians questioning the existence of the supreme court bureaucracy.

I would prefer to use the broad brush approach sparingly and under most circumstances group loyalty is a good thing. I understand supporting a friend but one must call things for what they are some times. If one does the right thing they deserve our support, on the flip side you can still support the person but to support the action draws the broad brush of association.

Jake, this has been said a hundred times but I'll say it again.

I don't support Tems action because he's my friend or we fight together or he's a good dancer.

I support Tems action because Grand Frere will do and say anything to cling to power and protect their little RL fantasy. It refuses to listen, debate fairly or come anywhere near to a compromise.

It needed a slap in the face and Tem was the man.

If the spin on things is now that certain actions were done for the sole purpose of initiating some kind of positive change I would have some difficulty in accepting that, fool me once........

If you are sincere in attempting to bring about positive change, support is required from more than those who might share in any particular group. Criticism has not been directed where it might belong and from where I sit some of those who might otherwise support positive change are being alienated.

As for Tem I have little desire to discuss him directly, his 10 minutes of fame or infamy are long over regarding the redistribution of funds.

The other issue at hand is the fact that people are trying to draw a conection between TNS and TCO. Now as much as maybe you could see them as one and the same i am afraid not. I hide not my membership in TCO just as members of the CAF do not hide they're membership. I in fact wear it with pride just as i did when i was DAL, Auditor General, congressmen..... TNS is MY vision of what the future needs and holds and not that of TCO.

Oliver, as far as the situation with Tem go's. I do feel he was out of line and made my opinions on the subject clear to him. My opinion on the laws that convicted him are that they are flawed as i clearly explained to him all the pretty loop holes that would have allowed him to get out of the charges. He refused and excepted his fate without argument and in return was given the harshest judgement in my recent memory.

The system needs to be fixed so that when someone breaks the law like Tem did, there are no loop holes that he could argue, so that his guilt is clean cut, but so that the punishment is equal to the crime.

Now ppl may argue it was worthy of the crime and i can except that, however in order for it to fit then those who commit greater crimes must receive greater punishments, CAD 4000 for a thief, a couple guns for a traitor, a slap on the wrist for insider trading.....

PS. @Tem; yes buddy thats right i think you were guilty of a crime and deserved to be punished. Friend or not, Law is the Law... ut the Law needs to be fixed!

what an interesting conversation. I start by saying I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. Everyone then assumes I do think there is a right answer. I don't.

What i am interested is how you get to the answer. Any answer. "you're a wank" isn't helpful.

The hypotheticals are not rhetorical. They bear resemblance to actual situations in order to make them authentic. Political philosophy is better discussed against the backdrop of authenticity.

I make no comment about any player's actual situation because i have no opinion. And that is where I started.

There are other hypothetical situations you could have used. I suspect that you didn't want to encourage any more conversations about 'those' situations so you chose one that doesn't make Grand Frere look bad.

I don't understand the expression Grand Frere. There are thousands of hypotheticals. I chose a few. Their purpose is to encourage discussion of moral and political philosophy, not the empirical facts of the pasts.

thebigguy wrote:
""The question I would ask is...would so many with a certain avatar be so concerned if the accused was not someone of their order? "

i find it interesting and hypocritical that you say that acacia since you are obviously coming to defend one of your fellow justices.

FURTHERMORE, i find it contemptuous that the Justices continue to rip at the carcass of this long dead decision/discussion in an attempt to hurt temujinBC by any means necessary including attacking the crimsons when in fact the reason for their embarrassment and anger is their own stupidity in the first place (by which i mean their erroneous Judgement order) which has ultimately resulted in the rest of eCanadians questioning the existence of the supreme court bureaucracy. "

x2

yep that about sums it up

Amazing: write an article that is completely unjugmental - invite respectful dialogue about a "new ethics" - be met with the old hackneyed response of vituperation -

oh yes those questions were SOOOOOO non-judgemental and not inflammatory.

this "innocent" question for example;

"Should my government provide funding to players who owe me/it money, or associations which include such players?"

I swear what the players of the crimson order goes through is nothing short of eRacism. This kind of questions follows the same logic as.

" oh a black guy robbed somebody, therefore all black people are robbers"

disgusting


maybe we should stop funding EDEN since 1ronman is a part of it and he owes the government 16000 cad. lol

enormous difference between a question - to which there can be many answers - and an assertion of fact - which is your example.

Now change your assertion to a question: "if a black guy robbed someone, are all black people robbers?"

You make the mistake of believing the questions are posed for effect - that they are disguised assertions. They are not.

If you think the question is a disguised attack on the Crimson's you are again mistaken. I don't have any difficulty expressing opinions when i have them. When i don't have an opinion, i ask questions.

Sometimes they are "hard questions". But that is how you do philosophy. Asking simple, non controversial and banal questions does not usually push thinking. Asking "hard questions" leads to either thoughtful investigation of underlying philosophy (which is what i thought the TNS revolution was about ) or knee-jerk reaction (which i see a lot of above).

Your last question is a good "hard question" which i would express as follows.

"should government stop funding of an organization which admits to high office a player owing the government $16000". The answer doesn't involve examination of whether 1ronman in fact owes the government anything. And the answer is by no means obvious.

I cant see anything in my comment that indicated I was supporting any of the justices? DO you see anything in my comment that says I am supporting any of the justices?

Time to clean your glasses!

Blah, blah, blah, too tedious to read, shutup already - I thought we were all turning over a new leaf

If Temujin isn't an eCanadian, then I'm not sure I am either