The Pirate Code

Meet other pirates here, introduce yourself and chat.
User avatar
Eduardo Blomar 1679
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:49 pm

The Pirate Code

Postby Eduardo Blomar 1679 » Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:58 pm

I, Eduardo Blomar, would like to discuss an issue I have that concerns me regarding The Pirate Code:

First, a pirate is the sole authority over their own life, and may not be crimped into service.
Second, duties are created by consent. Claims of obligation without consent are invalid.
Third, no pirate, nor crew, however commissioned, may initiate hostilities against any other.
Fourth, a pirate may, without permission or rank, defend themselves against any hostile party.
Fifth, no captain, nor crew can possess rights exceeding or violating those of an individual pirate.

Everything is not only acceptable, it is most desirable as an agreement between Pirates as to interaction - with one exception. A Captain that does his or her Due Diligence in Life and acquires their own ship may find it necessary to EMPLOY others, for which their efficacy is determined by The Captain alone. If found lacking, The Captain may request that a crewman or crewwoman leave his or her ship; but no crew can force a Captain to surrender their property under Number Three above.

Where do ye stand?
Doug
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: The Pirate Code

Postby Doug » Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:22 am

Umm...
I am gonna go with, Dirty Dancing. Shoot, no...not that one. The one where he is dead, playing with clay n stuff. Ghost! Is that it? I can never remember.
Doug
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: The Pirate Code

Postby Doug » Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:03 am

Ok...so no joking.

Can you clarify what you are asking or saying?

I know where I stand. But I don't know if that helps you.
User avatar
Eduardo Blomar 1679
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:49 pm

Re: The Pirate Code

Postby Eduardo Blomar 1679 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:35 pm

I contend that a Captain has the right to give the old heave-ho to any Crewman, and no Crewman has the right to remove a Captain from his boat. Number five of the Code does not account for this exception, and I am bringing this discrepancy up in the forum here before I put out a call for others to sail with me.

Sincerely,

Eduardo Blomar 1679

Captain
Doug
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: The Pirate Code

Postby Doug » Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:02 pm

I see. Well, worry not, about this discrepancy. I don't see any problem. Simply tell your crew this and see how many want to set sail.

Happy sailing
Doug
Woodchuck Pirate
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:13 pm

Re: The Pirate Code

Postby Woodchuck Pirate » Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:30 pm

Eduardo Blomar 1679 wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:35 pm
I contend that a Captain has the right to give the old heave-ho to any Crewman, and no Crewman has the right to remove a Captain from his boat. Number five of the Code does not account for this exception, and I am bringing this discrepancy up in the forum here before I put out a call for others to sail with me.

Sincerely,

Eduardo Blomar 1679

Captain
Sir,

The code is based in Aristotelian Philosophy, and in this case expresses the non-aggression principle through creative license modeling the concept "voluntaryism". I only maintain voluntary relationships. I see no request for invalid philosophy in the code. The absence of evidence for one case does not serve as evidence for an opposite case. That would be known as an argument from ignorance; a leap of faith in exact proportion from both cases, while equitable is devoid of utility. I reject faith in all forms. There are no conflicts in reality, if you think you have discovered a conflict in reality then examine your underlying assumptions, it is there you may find your error. Reality is not vulnerable to interpretation. Voluntaryism is not a stacked deck. Initiation of aggression is enemy of the code, as surely as voluntaryism is the code.

I'm nobody's Captain.

Beware of Statheists :

https://youtu.be/zXHW3xgNB4c

Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
Doug
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: The Pirate Code

Postby Doug » Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:44 pm

Reality is where conflicts manifest and through self-reflection of reality we can come to the cause of the conflict. Is that a fair statement?
If faith is rejected, in all forms, is the universe dead?
Woodchuck Pirate
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:13 pm

Re: The Pirate Code

Postby Woodchuck Pirate » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:36 pm

Doug wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:44 pm
Reality is where conflicts manifest and through self-reflection of reality we can come to the cause of the conflict. Is that a fair statement?
If faith is rejected, in all forms, is the universe dead?
Do you know the difference between sophistry and philosophy? Philosopher means lover of truth. Sophistry sounds like philosophy but isn't, it's simply a well crafted agrgument or at least attempts to posture as an argument. Life is existence. Form is the art of living. I am not my body. I am no"thing". I have never found any evidence to suggest that everlasting life is avoidable. In my perception the definition of hell would be to lie on my death bed and arise to discover myself as anything but consciousness devoid of matter.

Regarding your inquiry of faith and universe I'll answer per my own underlying assumptions wrapped in a paradigm which I hold in rejection of faith, meaning I could be completely wrong and don't care. Here is my answer: "It is my personal observation that consciousness does not happen because of biology, rather consciousness happens despite of biology. " I have read that knowing the truth doesn't matter, only the truth matters. If infinity exists then surely truth is infinite. Faith in science is not science. It follows that while inhabiting human lifeform and not knowing infinite truth doesn't matter, because only the truth matters. Consider the phenomenon of black holes, specifically the event horizon where all matter is stripped yet information of everything that passes into the hole may be recorded upon the event horizon. This speaks to "purpose" and in the absence of a unification theory an individual may choose to reject admitting what they do not know in favor of a popular leap of faith. The leap of faith is a rejection of consciousness. Life is existence. Do you prefer sophistry to philosophy? If so why? Base observation of your posts reveals diminished purpose(s). Were you not born under punches?

Enjoy your day.

Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
User avatar
Eduardo Blomar 1679
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:49 pm

Re: The Pirate Code

Postby Eduardo Blomar 1679 » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:50 pm

The 'evidence' of The Code shows itself with there being three distinct classes of individuals:

Pirate

Crew

Captain

A pirate is one who has no commitment on board ship, be they Passenger or Marauder.

Crew are those who have committed themselves into a voluntary agreement with a Captain, who owns the ship.

Captains are committed to the welfare of their Passengers and Crew.

_______________________________________________
Is Dereliction of Duty considered an 'act of aggression'?

EB
Woodchuck Pirate
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:13 pm

Re: The Pirate Code

Postby Woodchuck Pirate » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:56 pm

Eduardo Blomar 1679 wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:50 pm
The 'evidence' of The Code shows itself with there being three distinct classes of individuals:

Pirate

Crew

Captain

A pirate is one who has no commitment on board ship, be they Passenger or Marauder.

Crew are those who have committed themselves into a voluntary agreement with a Captain, who owns the ship.

Captains are committed to the welfare of their Passengers and Crew.

_______________________________________________
Is Dereliction of Duty considered an 'act of aggression'?

EB
Hence my reference to "creative license". By the way I'm not exactly a woodchuck.

Enjoy your day.

Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests