Meet the Fundamentalist Faction - Page 2

Juliennew · August 6, 2002, 18:54

Oops !! Wrong post.

Leland · August 6, 2002, 20:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Voltaire
So should we assume that the Fundamentalists would love nothing more than for us to live in the stone age? Or am I mistaken on your stance on research?

It is true that we will lobby for Fundamentalist SE choice, which spells -2 research. True Knowledge comes from God, and it is not feeble man's job to unravel the secrets of the universe for the sole purpose of arrogantly striving for "science falsely so called" and going against God's Will. We in the Fundamentalist Party believe that knowledge is a tool for the betterment of human lives and equality, and also to keep our military might more than competitive with the other factions, so of course we will not forsaken research altogether.

Besides, we believe that ethical considerations should be present in all scientific endeavours, and will have no moral qualms using the devilish inventions of Zakharov or Santiago against their Godless ilk. We promote a military of specialists, including well-trained probes that allow us to keep up in the science race until God provides us a chance to eliminate the unbelievers once and for all. So it'll mostly build and conquer modes for us I dare say.

I lament that Fundamentalist Party seems to have become the laughing stock of Chiron... the sins of Earth have truly followed us even to this new Garden of Eden! I hope that even with the disdain you godless atheists and fornicators may have towards us, it is obvious that we only strive to keeping the fundamentals: honor, strength and equality of all men.

Crisler · August 6, 2002, 20:09

Probes would be the most excellent Fundamentalist weapon of choice. We shall convert the armies of our enemies to believers. In doing this we do not use up our own rescources to build a large army, we let an enemy use his strength against himself.

This allows us to gain miliatry advancements very quickly without taking reseach time away from projects that better all of man kind.

Voltaire, you are most mistake on our stance for reseach. However speed is not needed for good research to be done. The slower pace will be offset by other factors.

Even this though is subject to debate becase the elected Commissioner does not get the final say, the people do.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

Voltaire · August 6, 2002, 20:11

Leland>

Ethical considerations should be taken into account, I fully agree, but they should come after the research. It is not the responsibility of the scientific community to determine the ethicality of research, rather it is up to the government and society as a whole to determine how these discoveries are to be used. Discoveries about the universe itself should be used to better ourselves, and even free ourselves from the burden of death eventually.

And it certainly is true that the sins of Earth have followed us to Chiron, but we should do well to remember that mankind’s first sin was faith, and their first virtue doubt.

Voltaire · August 6, 2002, 20:14

Crisler>

Would you allow religions freedom? From the looks of what you have stated you seems content to enforce your views of the world on all citizens.

Crisler · August 6, 2002, 20:21

Voltaire,

If that is what you get from reading all I have written then sadly you have either need to improve reading skills or I writting skills. I have expounded from the start that the Fundamentalist faction is not about imosing religion on anyone. It is about a deliberate and slow working method that takes time to consider ethics in all things.

I have more than once spoken to the fact that God allows us freedom to choose our own sins, who are we to not allow that of others.

In answer to your question, Yes I believe in freedom of religion. Just as a believe in freedom to express your views.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

Voltaire · August 6, 2002, 20:28

Quote:

Probes would be the most excellent Fundamentalist weapon of choice. We shall convert the armies of our enemies to believers.

I may have been mistaken in my interpretation of your view, and I apologize, but comments such as the one above are misleading in this regard.

Leland · August 6, 2002, 20:31

I also believe that every man has freedom to choose whether to follow his Godgiven conscience or to sin like there was no tomorrow. Naturally, should you disagree with us you will be accountable to the Lord in the Judgment Day (which is soon upon us) and be cast into the lake of fire.

Anodyne · August 6, 2002, 20:33

Now, laughing at someone's miseries?

Crisler · August 6, 2002, 20:34

Voltair,

My reasoning is why build a large army. With proper use of Probes we can turn the army of our enemy against him. As such we can use our production and research to better use in providing for our people.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

Voltaire · August 6, 2002, 20:45

Crisler,

I agree with your reasoning, though I do not see the point of fundamentalism seeing as war shouldn’t be a pursuit of society. And even if it were to be used for defensive purposes only, the obstruction of research does not seem as a worth sacrifice to gain a small advantage over your enemy in conflict. Why convert the enemy troops to your own side when you can wipe them out with superior weaponry? A large army is not required at all, rather a small superior and efficient force capable of dealing with the enemy.

Leland · August 6, 2002, 20:59

Of course we would not rely on probes alone... we too are in favour of small elite troops, which would surely benefit from the morale boost.

Crisler · August 6, 2002, 20:59

Voltaire,

Once again you sound as if you are quoting me my earlier posts. The use of Probes was a recent thought that I felt was an interesting alternative.

Perhaps you are closer to Fundamentalist that you want us to know

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

Voltaire · August 6, 2002, 21:12

LOL, it’s true that I agree with some of your ideas, but I just believe that they can all be implemented under a fundamentalist government (do to the -2 research). This is particularly true in the case of a small elite force, given that this small elite force if it ever encounters another factions who exceeds it in technology that force is useless. IMO it would be more logical to have a larger force of units that may not be top of the line under a fundamentalist policy. The research deficiency can be overcome by running knowledge under social engendering, but in this case the probe bonus is nullified. Late game cybernetics can help research and efficiency, but I would imagine that the moral standards under fundamentalism would not allow that as a SE choice.

Crisler · August 6, 2002, 21:19

The way to build an elite force is not always the best technology sometimes it is the best training. Let our forces advance. When one does then hold it back and protect it so it can keep advancing and not be killed. Rather than build a ton of new units, upgrades these experienced units. Also use position to effect, an experienced unit with the high ground can take down an inexperienced unit with 2 or even 3 levels of tech advantage.

Also thorugh well used probes and trades we can overcome the research obsticals as well. I also advocate an agressive exploration team to find data pods before the others do, again nullifying the research lose.

I do agree that Cybernetics are not an alternative I would seek. However my goal would be to have won a diplomatic victory before that point is reached.

Knowledge under social engineering might not be a bad alternative either, while this negates the probe defense it does strengthen other areas. And by the time we reach this point we might no longer need probe defense.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

Voltaire · August 6, 2002, 21:35

You make a good case, and under a fundamentalist government they do make sense. But nonetheless, under proper conditions running either Green of Free Market in mid-game allows for research rates of only a few turns, but late-game under Cybernetic the research rate can lowered to 2 or 3 turns for a democratic society. I fully advocate quick expansion as well in order to ensure a large population base for commerce, research, etc; as well as the possibility of a Diplomatic Victory or at least to ensure the position of Planetary Governor. I believe the idea victory goal should be transcendence, and all others should only be considered in extreme cases. Furthermore the SE choices of Democracy/Green (ideally) or Free Market/Knowledge/Cybernetic guarantee the quickest route to transcendence.

Crisler · August 6, 2002, 21:42

Voltair, you also make some good points, I personally would like to see Fundamentalist Green :-) hey we get what we can work with :-) I would accept Democratic /Green as a worthy alternative.

Again though this is what I have proposed all along a compromise on these matters so that all parties can feel adeiquately represented. As I asked before I would welcome an alliance with your party in an effort to unite behind our common goal areas. In that way we can try to work toward our goals. Once we have the common areas secured we can then work on compromises to the areas of objection.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

Voltaire · August 6, 2002, 21:51

I would welcome an alliance, we may disagree on certain issues but at least we can work together towards those we agree on.

Crisler · August 6, 2002, 22:07

Well said sir, if you would like to make an official announcement of this allaince I will back ti to the wall. From here forward the LSD and Fundamentalist Faction will work together to bring prosperity to our new colony.

An issue we will need to discuss is how we handle the upcoming election for offices. Would your party back my canidacy for Commissioner in reutnr for the Fundamentalist Faction backing your run for Science Advisor?

If so we need to find some other factions that might join us to fill other psoitions. In that way we can make a truly coalition goverment that will represent all the people of this colony.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

jdd2007 · August 6, 2002, 22:16

the hawks would agree to an alliance, if we have no more than 3 or 4 members after this week.

Anodyne · August 6, 2002, 22:20

Voltaire>
While you may agree on an alliance, it's just proper to consult the rest of the party (on our thread etc...)
I, for example, might not be too comfortable with it, as our basic ideologies are somewhat opposed it might diminish our credibility (being just one of the reasons)

Voltaire · August 6, 2002, 22:22

Quote:

While you may agree on an alliance, it's just proper to consult the rest of the party (on our thread etc...)

I apologize for the misunderstanding, as I did say I may agree on an alliance, I never spoke for the party. I will clarify that now.

Leland · August 6, 2002, 22:42

On behalf of the Orthodox hard-liners of our party, I would also welcome an alliance with LSD. At least it would keep us from allying with more other radical sub-factions.

jdd2007 · August 6, 2002, 22:55

how about the hawks?

Leland · August 6, 2002, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by jdd2007
how about the hawks?

The way I see it, now we're kind of lingering between a more peaceful moderation (like LSD) and emphasis on strength and honor (like Hawks). Would you be prepared to support Crisler as Commissioner, if we reciprocate by supporting your guy as the Director of Science?

jdd2007 · August 6, 2002, 23:30

yes, leland.

a coalition would be best. check out ACE

Crisler · August 7, 2002, 07:49

JDD,

No matter the outcome of the Coalition that has been proposed the Fundamentalist Faction would welcome an Allaince with the Hawks. Your views on a stonrg military are something we share. Combined with our views of peace first this would make a strong platform.

Ade the only issue of contention between the FF and the LSD is the issue of faith, the other 95% of our platforms are very close. In social engineering with the excpetion of the Fundamentalist choice we are just about right on target.

An allaince would strengthen both of our abilites to achieve those common goals, as I said to Voltaire, and once those common goals are achived we can work on compromises to achive the other goals that we disagree on. In the end compromise is the true langauge of polotics, and for a Fundamenalist the key to political compromise is not to give up our base values, which political wrangling usually has nothing to do with.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

Leland · August 7, 2002, 11:04

Is the official name of our party "Fundamentalist Faction" or "Fundamentalist Party"?

Method · August 7, 2002, 11:09

crisler, can i ask again about your views on market/green? you said before that i "might just sway you". have i?

Crisler · August 7, 2002, 12:17

TKG,

I can say I find your argument very valid. I would be willing to tender the trade off of Green for Free Market as you proposed if some concessions where issued from your side on other matters. Afterall politics is the art of compromise, finding what areas are worth fighting over and what areas are not.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction