Pirates Without Borders
Pirates Without Borders => Promenade => Topic started by: Eduardo Blomar 1679 on October 01, 2017, 10:58:38 AM
-
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
Where do ye stand?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
"meaning I could be completely wrong and don't care".
Maybe this is where we take a separate path. I care about not being wrong, while also enjoying when i am wrong, because then i can adjust my path.
I don't perfer one identity over another.
We have many layers of coding,if you will, running and i am trying to examine the purpose of each layer, for myself.
In fact, for me, this identity hub-bub makes it really hard to verbally communicate honesty.
-
It seems to me everyone has the right to expel someone from their own property. A homeowner may expel you from their home, even though you may not expel them, but this doesn't constitute a disparity of rights. It's about context. It's certainly a higher risk scenario where expulsion means floating in the ocean, or worse in space. I stand by the code as written. The best answer I can give is that in the scenario where the captain is the sole owner of the ship, and is employing crew, there is an employment agreement which could easily describe the terms of termination. If you are the captain you are free to write your own code, and if you're the employed crew you're free to raise this concern before setting sail. Perhaps even amending the employment agreement, or the code, aboard that ship. The Pirate Code is not intended as the code of all pirate ships. It's the code of Captain Marque's ship. Historically crews were more likely to maroon someone, or throw them out at the next port, than throw them to the sharks. Hollywood tells a different story for dramatic effect.
Personally, were I captain, I would be extremely careful expelling crew by any means, because I understand that mutiny is always a possibility, regardless of what is written. My reputation as a captain plays a part in keeping conduct on board civilized, and if I push the crew too far they may very well turn on me.
-
Thank you Davi, for an intelligent response (for a change).
I contend that Property Rights are no less sacred than those of Life and Liberty.
As written, The Code states that Crew have the same 'rights' as Captains.
I disagree.
NO Crew member has a RIGHT to be on my boat EXCEPT BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT WITH ME.
Period.
As a Captain I am offended by this portion of The Code, and will argue for either it's removal, or the addition of a Caveat expressing this Sole Right of Expulsion into The Code. That is why I began this thread. I hope to hear from others on this (in my view) important matter.
So far, only those who have no desire to be a Captain have commented, and have little regard for the matter. Are there any other Captains out there that have an opinion?
Sincerely,
Eduardo Blomar
Captain
1679
(and yes, I understand all the implications of being a disreputable leader, but they are of no consequence to An Honest Captain. As long as one's Word is kept, only Treachery can take his ship).
-
Why are you offended? You're a Captain, right? Or as a Captain, you need to have someone else give you permission. Haha.
Silly. That's what this is.
-
Why have a Code at all, Doug?
Or is that 'silly' also?
Your attitude is why TAXATION is in the U. S. Constitution (which I never would have signed to begin with after reading it.)
E. B. 1679
-
That is a good question. Why have a code at all? I don't know. Are we not adults? We need to put in writing how to treat each other? Certainly I am not offended at any other person's code. Silly, indeed.
You needed to read the Constitution before you smelled a rat?
I am offended. HAHAHA!!!
-
Respectfully,
We have Codes for the same reason we have Flags, sir.
It is simply an issue of Trust.
E. B. 1679
-
And a simple(superficial) trust you will get, if you look to codes and flags to find it.
Peace
Doug
-
Men can be animals, and moreso Pirates.
Captain Bartholomew Roberts became famous for his Code in 1671, which must be signed before boarding:
I. Every man has a vote in affairs of moment; has equal title to the fresh provisions, or strong liquors, at any time seized, and may use them at pleasure, unless a scarcity makes necessary, for the good of all, to vote a retrenchment.
II. Every man to be called fairly in turn, by list, on board of prizes because, they were on these occasions allowed a shift of clothes: but if they defrauded the company to the value of a dollar in plate, jewels, or money, marooning was their punishment. If the robbery was only betwixt one another, they contented themselves with slitting the ears and nose of him that was guilty, and set him on shore, not in an uninhabited place, but somewhere, where he was sure to encounter hardships.
III. No person to game at cards or dice for money.
IV. The lights and candles to be put out at eight o’clock at night: if any of the crew, after that hour still remained inclined for drinking, they were to do it on the open deck.
V. To keep their peace, pistols, and cutlass clean and fit for service.
VI. No boy or woman to be allowed amongst them. If any man were to be found seducing any of the latter sex, and carried her to sea, disguised, he was to suffer death.
VII. To desert their ship or quarters in battle, was punished with death or marooning.
VIII. No striking one another on board, but every man’s quarrels to be ended on shore, at sword and pistol.
IX. No man to talk of breaking up their way of living, till each had shared £1,000. If in order to this, any man should lose a limb, or become a cripple in their service, he was to have 800 dollars, out of the public stock, and for lesser hurts, proportionately.
X. The captain and quartermaster to receive two shares of prize: the master, boatswain, and gunner, one share and a half, and other officers one and a quarter.
XI. The musicians to have rest on the Sabbath Day, only by night, but the other six days and nights, not without special favour.
XII (3. Add optional article(s) here)
Fast forward a half a century.
Is Mankind any less capable of exhibiting its' animalistic tendencies than in 1671? Is he (or she) any less needed to be reminded that certain behaviours aboard ship are unacceptable and will be punished if engaged in?
Maybe.
That could be the reason for less rules and less specificity. Yet the need still exists.
We need to be able to see the flags of others from a safe distance - that's why they are there.
Communication devices. We need to see what that person believes in, and to which 'like minded' groups do they belong, and why?
Do I trust them? Is it safe for me to get closer to them? Can I trust them to trade fairly?
When you see The Jolly Roger you can put full faith and trust in it on face value.
No superficiality here,
Eduardo Blomar 1679
-
Yeah...so Blomy. I don't want to blow your mind or anything, but I am from hundreds of years in the future and...are you sitting down?...flags and codes still don't work. Yeah, I know. We are gonna have to dig deep and find a better way. No, money is not gonna solve this problem. ( hint...it is the problem)
Here's a glass of water. I'll let you catch up.
Peace
Doug
-
I ask again:
-
What would you do with my answer? Would that change anything? The choice is yours. I choose freedom.
-
I feel this subject has been taken too lightly.
Flippancy has brought me to my limits.
PLEASE, either discuss the issue I postulate, with civility, or be silent.
I remain,
EB
-
ah...reasoning from a meme.
You have your reward.
If it is not the reward you seek, then you need to pay more attention.
I can not clear up your confusion.
We don't need to fly anywhere to get away from, they them those.
We don't know how gravity works.
we don't know how our eyes can see.
we don't know how the sun works.
Hubris abounds.
You want to have, rights, you must create.
We have infinite value, but we must pay attention to use it.
We must know who we are.
We are already Free.
Peace
Doug
Freedom is the effect. Are you the cause?
-
There's no contradiction here. Any pirate may acquire a ship and call themselves a captain. That right exists for all pirates. Owning a ship provides the opportunity to employ a crew, and to expel trespassers, but doesn't grant the right to crimp a crew into service, which no pirate possesses. Every member of that crew possesses the same right to acquire a ship and call themselves a captain, and to employ a crew, and to expel trespassers. Because it's their ship. Maybe they don't personally possess a ship at that moment, but they possess the same rights to acquire one, or to seize the opportunity whatever possessions they have acquired affords. So, every pirate has the right to acquire possessions and use them as they see fit. And no pirate has the right to seize the possessions of others and use them against their will. The difference in acceptable behavior aboard a ship is a function of the individual's relationship to the ship, not a difference of rights.
-
You may as well say individuals don't have equal rights because the one who acquires a burrito has the right to consume it, while the one who doesn't acquire a burrito doesn't. The point is everyone has the right to acquire a burrito, they just don't get to enjoy the benefits of that right until they actually do.