open All Channels
seplocked Intergalactic Summit
blankseplocked Some Rescuees Need a New Home...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Raze Valadeus
Amarr
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2011.07.14 00:53:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Tarryn Nightstorm
Originally by: Myyona
Not that I would ever put a claim on other people’s lives, but Ataraxia Pharmacies have been helping and supporting homeless and refugees on to new and better futures for years now. Our program involves not only sheltering and immediate medical care but also help in resettling and educational schooling.

It is not uncommon that former clients become employees of the corporation.


Yay'z! back in-pod soon!

Having done some research, I think I can say--with all due respect, and again, thanks and appreciation to all other interested parties--that Ataraxia seems like the best place to send these people.

Plus (grins rakishly), I like your style, Ms. Myyona.

Shall we make the arrangements?


I believe there is wisdom in your decision, Captain Nightstorm. I will pray that those released to this care will be tended to appropriately.

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2011.07.14 00:53:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
supposed moral or political wrong (if there's even a difference)


Moral relativism means personal irrelevance. Arrogant intellectualism revelling in basic epistemological insights does not help you decide what to do or not to do. It only makes you incapable of action.

To actually work towards a better future, we first have to figure out what "good" is so we can compare possible outcome states of actions and decide which of them is "better" than now. The only way to prevent becoming what we despise is to first accept that there are things we despise.

This includes defining certain actions as "bad".

A person who fights to reclaim my people into their Empire is a bad person and deserves being fought.

A person who says they are not doing that, but whose actions show otherwise, deserves being reminded that they are merely deceiving themselves - because apparently, there is still some hope for them, as they seem to be afraid of accepting what they are.

Quote:
to dehumanize your opponents and thereby make it morally justifiable or even compulsory slaughter them out of hand after treating them in a suitably shabby manner is a time-honored human trick.


I do not need to call my enemies "not human" to justify "slaughtering" them. I am quite capable of slaughtering humans if that is necessary. I try to avoid treating them in a "shabby manner", though, as that is rarely conductive to a goal.

You do not know me at all, do you?


Having taken my people into slavery was a monstrous act. Defending the status quo is likewise monstrous. People who do that are therefore monsters.

A culture which is based on imposing itself onto everyone else by force without letting them opt out is barbaric. A person who defends this culture and fights for its expansion is therefore barbaric. (Actually, the Amarrian culture deserves the term "barbaric" for a few other specific traits, but this one example should suffice here.)

Ms. Farel does both. Hence, she is a barbaric monster. This is a simple terminological observation. It has nothing to do with trying to justify "slaughtering" anyone.

The fact that she is would not normally be worth mentioning, except I got the impression that she is quite keen on actually not doing either of the above. She seems to be deceiving herself somewhat, so I figured a reminder would be suitable. I'm quite happy with her reply, too.

Quote:
But, and here's the real question, Mr. Sadik-- how exactly, if you paint your enemies this way, will you be able to tell if you start becoming something like me?


What exactly would "like you" be, and why would I care whether I am "like you" or not? I try to avoid choosing actions based simply on who else does them (some of my gravest enemies regularly breathe, and I still do not have any intentions to stop that habit myself, much to their dismay).

The fragments of you that I can glimpse on IGS made me think that you are a very insecure person who tries to hide her insecurity behind an intellectual facade. You seem very lost in the world and unsure what it is that you actually want. But trying to analyze a person merely from their posts on IGS is not really that sensible, so I am likely quite off.


If your actual question was as to how I can tell that I am not starting to act in ways I despise, that I do by first actually being aware of what it is that I despise, instead of getting lost in the insight that all morals are relative and that there is not really any "good" or "evil" in this world.

Lyn Farel
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2011.07.14 11:09:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Lyn Farel on 14/07/2011 11:10:57
You definitly sound like an ignorant, Mr Sadik.

Saying things does not automatically make them true. You made your accusations : you called me a liar, you said that I was supporting slavery, you said I fought for the Amarr expansion through the old fashioned reclaiming, and you said that I was defending a statu quo. Now, please explain and expose the logical reasoning that leaded you to these conclusions, even if I can already get a glimpse of its supidity and ignorance. Unless I get the full explanation and constructed reasoning behind this, I call you a liar who is just hoping to validate his point with mere slander.

On a sidenote, they are not "your" people, as you say, and even if this was a slip of the tongue common to many Minmatar, it is very telling in itself about the ideological tyranny you tend to impose on "your" people.

On another sidenote, barbaric takes its root in the ambiguous word barbaricus, which also means "stranger". I do not know if it was intentionnal or not, but if I were you I would use instead "savage", which is another meaning of the word, which could prevent you to sound like a xenophobic person (by mixing stranger and savage in the same word).

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2011.07.14 12:01:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Lyn Farel
You definitly sound like an ignorant, Mr Sadik.

Saying things does not automatically make them true.


Indeed.

Quote:
You made your accusations : you called me a liar,


No, I have not.

Quote:
you said that I was supporting slavery,


Yes, you are.

Quote:
you said I fought for the Amarr expansion through the old fashioned reclaiming,


I'm not sure you actively fight for that, but you support that, yes.

Quote:
and you said that I was defending a statu quo.


Yes, you are.

Quote:
Now, please explain and expose the logical reasoning that leaded you to these conclusions, even if I can already get a glimpse of its supidity and ignorance.


Why ask if you are not interested in the reply?

Are you sure it's not simply because you know I am right, and are afraid to accept the truth.

You defend the status quo.

A quick check of public records shows that you regularly run complexes in the war zone (over 300 in total). That is, you either actively attack the Republic or defend the status quo in the Empire. A quick glimpse to the killboards will show you active in multiple Amarr Militia fleets, both within the Empire and within the Republic, fighting for the status quo of the Empire. You might want to tell yourself that you are "merely protecting the Empire", but that's simply stating the same: You defend the status quo.

You support the Amarrian expansion through the old-fashioned reclaiming.

You are a member of the Amarr Militia. The self-description of the 24th Imperial Crusade states rather clearly that It was us who brought civilization to this dark and perilous world [...] We need you to help us save the Minmatar from themselves. Every day you wake up and fight under the banner of the Amarr Militia, this is what you fight for, no matter what you like to tell yourself. By supporting the 24th Imperial Crusade you support the reclaiming.

You support slavery.

By supporting the 24th Imperial Crusade you support a number of organizations who like to take and keep slaves. You might tell them in a stern voice that you do not condone their actions, but your deeds support them nonetheless.


The simple truth is that you do all of the above. For you, likely the alternative - losing systems the Minmatar Militia or even losing the Empire as it is - is worse than compromising on your ideals and supporting slavery and the reclaiming, but that does not remove your support. Stop trying to deceive yourself. You are "not a nice person" indeed. Accept that, or actually let deeds follow your words.

On the other hand, I know you work hard to change the Empire from within. I wish you good luck with that effort. Sadly, the reality of the situation means you compromise your own work every day.

Oh, and also note that I am not telling you to stop your fight for the status quo and the reclaiming. I can fully understand your desire to defend your people from external aggression. I am merely pointing out that your social claims and in-space actions differ.

Quote:
On a sidenote, they are not "your" people,


Yes, the Sebiestor are my people, as are the Minmatar. You might not understand "my people" correctly; it's not a statement of property. I know that is the first thought an Amarrian would have.

Quote:
On another sidenote, barbaric takes its root in the ambiguous word barbaricus, which also means "stranger".


"Babbling in a different language", actually. Language changes over time, though. Terms are used to refer to a specific concept. Communication happens when a term is used and the referenced concept is understood. Trying to argue that the term that you perfectly well understood does not really mean what you understood is irrelevant.

If you want to go down that path, I could remind you what a "crusade" actually means, which is what you participate in.

Victoria Valadeus
Amarr
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2011.07.14 13:14:00 - [35]
 

Mr. Sadik,

I suspect that someday we may have a very interesting, enlightening conversation. Alas, I'm afraid today is not that day.

Aria Jenneth
Caldari
Kumiho's Smile
Posted - 2011.07.14 16:51:00 - [36]
 

Mr. Sadik:

Perhaps I spoke too harshly. However....

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Moral relativism means personal irrelevance. Arrogant intellectualism revelling in basic epistemological insights does not help you decide what to do or not to do. It only makes you incapable of action.


To the contrary: it means that you do what you do with full understanding of who you are doing it for.

If you take vengeance for your people, you are taking vengeance for your people, not for the universe.

Quote:
The only way to prevent becoming what we despise is to first accept that there are things we despise.

This includes defining certain actions as "bad".


Mm. So you agree that it is you doing the defining. You have that much self-awareness, at least.

And yet the terminology you use....

I suppose my major problem with your claims is that Ms. Farel, of all Amarr, seems fairly sympathetic to your cause over all. If there is ever to be a peace between your empires, it will likely be negotiated through liberals like her.

If you live up to your rhetoric, that will be difficult.

Quote:
I do not need to call my enemies "not human" to justify "slaughtering" them. I am quite capable of slaughtering humans if that is necessary. I try to avoid treating them in a "shabby manner", though, as that is rarely conductive to a goal.

You do not know me at all, do you?


Only through your own choice of words.

You accused Ms. Farel of not only being a monster, but also said that she still "clings" to being human, not wanting to accept her nature. You also indicated that Rodj Blake is purely monstrous.

Applied to an enemy, that's dehumanization, pretty much by definition, though I am willing to believe you did not intend it as such.

Now, that said, I do suspect that Mr. Blake's zealotry masks a nature more like mine. The Matari are not the only group whose passions can easily mask a slide into capsuleer dementia.

Quote:
Having taken my people into slavery was a monstrous act. Defending the status quo is likewise monstrous. People who do that are therefore monsters.


Definition games. The Amarr play those too: "Anyone outside of the faith is a heathen, and condemned to an eternity of suffering unless they accept our true faith. Heathen are to be brought to the truth through the Reclaiming, for their own good."

Do you really want to join them in the business of redefining the universe to justify your actions?

Quote:
If your actual question was as to how I can tell that I am not starting to act in ways I despise, that I do by first actually being aware of what it is that I despise, instead of getting lost in the insight that all morals are relative and that there is not really any "good" or "evil" in this world.


Personally, I find it difficult to get lost in an insight for much the same reason it is difficult to get lost in a map (presuming you're somewhere on it): it's a tool for orienting one's self.

My relativistic outlook does not prevent me from opposing Sansha's Nation, nor even the Amarr (who I do regard as a threat, but a distant one held in check by the realities of interstellar politics). Nor did it prevent me from opposing the Gallente, when I was still loyal to the State. I prioritize concerns appropriate to my position as an independent capsuleer, and act accordingly.

Part of the reason I am no longer loyal to the State is my concern that I will not be able to serve it as it deserves to be served-- that my passion would be greater than my empathy and restraint, and that the result would be atrocity, leading to dark days for our kind.

This is a risk for any soldier, but more so for our kind. For whatever reason, capsuleers become merciless so very easily.

I fear that many among the Matari and Amarr do not realize that this is even a danger. Then again, that passion also cloaks you both: if an Amarr or Matari capsuleer glassed a planet, would that be laid at the feet of the capsuleers? Or the empires?

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2011.07.14 17:58:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
I suppose my major problem with your claims is that Ms. Farel, of all Amarr, seems fairly sympathetic to your cause over all. If there is ever to be a peace between your empires, it will likely be negotiated through liberals like her.


The problem with Ms. Farel is not that she is "sympathetic to my cause". That is the only reason I actually bother with this - I do have hopes that she actually sees what she is doing, because what she is doing is jeopardizing her own goals.

She seems sympathetic to "my cause" because she talks a lot like that. But when she undocks and actually acts, she is no different from any other slaver out there.

And yet she regularly wants to be treated as if her actions never occur.

Quote:
Quote:
Having taken my people into slavery was a monstrous act. Defending the status quo is likewise monstrous. People who do that are therefore monsters.


Definition games. The Amarr play those too: "Anyone outside of the faith is a heathen, and condemned to an eternity of suffering unless they accept our true faith. Heathen are to be brought to the truth through the Reclaiming, for their own good."

Do you really want to join them in the business of redefining the universe to justify your actions?


On a very abstract level, we all "join them" in that. We can not know anything. Any action we partake in is based on us inventing a purely subjective reason. There is no higher "truth" or "good".

I fully understand Amarrians wanting to reclaim my people into their Empire. I am not denying their abstract right to do so. I am merely informing them that I am making use my right to try and stop them.

Which I do out of purely subjective reasons. The same as anyone else does whatever they choose to do.

Quote:
This is a risk for any soldier, but more so for our kind. For whatever reason, capsuleers become merciless so very easily.


"Mercy" is the act of refraining from a justifiable action because of compassion in a situation where refraining from said action does not harm your own cause. I am more inclined to be merciful in regards to Ms. Farel than I would be with Mr. Blake, primarily because I do feel that Ms. Farel wants the right things, but lacks the courage to actually do them. Mr. Blake wants the wrong things, and I do not have much hope for him to ever chang - neither because I am shooting him nor because Ms. Farel diligently informs him that keeping slaves is rude. Whether Ms. Farel is acting like a barbaric monster has no influence on whether I consider her worthy of marcifulness.


As for capsuleers in general. We face a rather paradox world. We are nearly gods - almost immortal, more powerful than any other being we know, richer than most. But at the same time, we are completely impotent to actually harm another capsuleer. No matter what we do, they can just come back.

It is an easy trap to try harder and harder to have an effect. So much so that we lose all restraints and become monsters.

Another common solution to this dilemma is to simply assume that all capsuleers are, in the end, friends - no matter what their actions are. If you can't fight it, befriend it.

Both of these options mean you give up who you are, though.

Aria Jenneth
Caldari
Kumiho's Smile
Posted - 2011.07.15 00:42:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Aria Jenneth on 15/07/2011 00:44:14
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
She seems sympathetic to "my cause" because she talks a lot like that. But when she undocks and actually acts, she is no different from any other slaver out there.

And yet she regularly wants to be treated as if her actions never occur.


I'd suggest that she rather wants to be treated as a loyal liberal instead of a loyal hardliner.

An important word here is "loyal." Whatever her politics, when she's told there's a war on, she goes to the defense of her home.

She's an enemy soldier. There's a lot of space, qualitatively, between that and "monster." I'll address your views on subjectivity in a moment.

Quote:
Any action we partake in is based on us inventing a purely subjective reason. There is no higher "truth" or "good".


So why do you talk as though there is?

Do you think Ms. Farel will listen to you better, now that you've called her a monster? Do you think she will put her gun down?

More to the point, being as the real audience on IGS is always those who read more than those who argue, do you think they understand that you're not claiming that Ms. Farel is, objectively, a monster?

You may understand that it's all subjective, but do you trust everyone to understand the same?

People normally presume words to mean more or less what they say. Subtexts and unvoiced subtleties require preexisting knowledge. It doesn't help that there are those (Andreus Ixiris, for one) who believe the Amarr are objectively evil monsters-- and speak almost exactly as you do.

If you don't want to inadvertently support your own extremist wing, you might want to choose your subjectively-significant words with greater care.

Quote:
I am merely informing them that I am making use my right to try and stop them.


Less "right," more "ability."

No higher truths, remember. (Not that I actually believe that, precisely.)

Quote:
"Mercy" is the act of refraining from a justifiable action because of compassion in a situation where refraining from said action does not harm your own cause.


Well, that's one definition, but narrower than its common meaning, which is more like:

mercy, n. 1. compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power; compassion, pity, or benevolence....

I've always liked the look of unhardened structures bursting into a symphony of flame under a well-timed barrage of Fried or Foe missiles. It's a taste I try not to put myself in a position to indulge; it's hazardous to our collective long-term health.

Just an example.

Quote:
We are nearly gods - almost immortal, more powerful than any other being we know, richer than most. But at the same time, we are completely impotent to actually harm another capsuleer. No matter what we do, they can just come back.


Oh, I don't know. Economic harm can get pretty severe, as can damage to morale.

Quote:
It is an easy trap to try harder and harder to have an effect. So much so that we lose all restraints and become monsters.


Hm. Interesting hypothesis. I don't think I actually buy it, not least because some of the most merciless capsuleers to be found have never so much as shot at a peer.

Still, interesting idea.

Quote:
Another common solution to this dilemma is to simply assume that all capsuleers are, in the end, friends - no matter what their actions are. If you can't fight it, befriend it.


Is this how you describe those who will cheerfully greet both Merdaneth and Ethan Verone?

Mm. You may be on to something more, here. Except ...

... While there aren't that many groups I hold serious grudges against, I have historically happily shot at most comers. It's nothing personal, and often involves some pleasant chat after (successful or not).

Many capsuleers do the same: there's often little hatred in our violence. Sometimes there's not even any profit.

Curious to think of friendliness as a way of being lost....

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2011.07.15 08:12:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Aria Jenneth
I'd suggest that she rather wants to be treated as a loyal liberal instead of a loyal hardliner.


She is.

Her loyalty means that she is supporting slavery and the Reclaiming, both things she'd rather not be accused of supporting.

Quote:
Quote:
Any action we partake in is based on us inventing a purely subjective reason. There is no higher "truth" or "good".


So why do you talk as though there is?


It does not matter how I talk about it, every single way I talk is as wrong as it is right. If there is no "truth" then there is also no "falsehood". If there is no "good" then there is also no "evil".

The whole thought process leads to an impasse: Nothing can come out of it. Based on this thought process, there is no reason to act in any specific way, nor is there a reason to not act in any specific way. You have a full choice of actions, including in-action, and no reason to pick any one of them above another. (Even more so, you do not have any reason to believe that you actually can act, that acting is meaningful in any way, or that your understanding of "existing" which you apply to yourself is meaningful in any way.)

I choose my actions so they achieve a state of the world that has more qualities of kind A and less qualities of kind B (and this is already assuming a lot of things). Whether I use "A" here, "good", "god-willed", or even "sexy" is purely my personal, subjective choice.

Using "good" and "evil" here is what most people understand, so it's a good choice of words. Neither "more right" nor "more wrong" than any other.

Quote:
Do you think Ms. Farel will listen to you better, now that you've called her a monster? Do you think she will put her gun down?


No. I assume she is a loyalist, just like I am a loyalist. Hence, I doubt anything I say will make her put her gun down. I'd actually be greatly disappointed if that was a possibility.

But just as me being a loyalist means that I tolerate (limited) piracy when it benefits the Republic, her being a loyalist means that she tolerates slavery when it benefits the Empire. As do all of her corp mates. Tolerating crimes means you support them.

What started out this discussion was Ms. Farel implying that her corp mate is not a slaver. Re-reading that post, I might have misunderstood her there. Though it would fit with the general position she likes to put herself and her corp into.

Quote:
More to the point, being as the real audience on IGS is always those who read more than those who argue, do you think they understand that you're not claiming that Ms. Farel is, objectively, a monster?


Oh, on the abstract level, the purpose of my post was to work against the KotMC propaganda of being the "nice guys". Ms. Farel stating herself that she never claimed to be a "nice person" was a good resolution to this. Discussing with you is more for personal enjoyment, and I thought a few times if it was appropriate to rather move it to private.

I admit that my choice of words is often suboptimal, though. I instinctively prefer shock effect over long drawn-out debates, and that can easily backfire (as can the long drawn-out debates, sadly).

Quote:
If you don't want to inadvertently support your own extremist wing, you might want to choose your subjectively-significant words with greater care.


The extremist wing has already won. I never wanted a war, but that's what we have. It's a fact of life, and as much as I would have liked it to never have happened, it is here and I have to deal with it. I do not have particularly high hopes on how this war can end well for either side.

One of my current pet peeves in this war is ridiculous propaganda of the enemy. For example, claiming that you are not really accept slavery or support the Reclaiming while actively fighting in the 24th Imperial Crusade.

Aria Jenneth
Caldari
Kumiho's Smile
Posted - 2011.07.15 20:12:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Aria Jenneth on 16/07/2011 00:08:50
Edited by: Aria Jenneth on 15/07/2011 20:17:26
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Her loyalty means that she is supporting slavery and the Reclaiming, both things she'd rather not be accused of supporting.


No doubt. Probably she just feels that a distinction so important to both herself and the orthodox Amarr should be at least visible to others.

Quote:
It does not matter how I talk about it, every single way I talk is as wrong as it is right. If there is no "truth" then there is also no "falsehood".


Nonsense. Just because the universe is morally silent doesn't mean that there is no truth or that there is no judgment.

The "truth" is the universe itself. The "judgment" is the consequences that flow from our actions. That the universe itself doesn't "like" or "dislike" certain outcomes doesn't mean we can't.

I'm not interested in the "right" or "wrong" of your words. I am very interested in the outcomes they produce, at least partly because those outcomes may bear on our long-term survival.

Quote:
Using "good" and "evil" here is what most people understand, so it's a good choice of words. Neither "more right" nor "more wrong" than any other.



Except that, in a morally silent universe, which you know to be so, you are knowingly promoting an illusion, similar in kind to the Amarrian faith (if less all-encompassing).

From the sounds of things, you haven't fully weighed the implications.

Quote:
I doubt anything I say will make her put her gun down. I'd actually be greatly disappointed if that was a possibility.


Really? You'd be disappointed if she ceased to be your enemy?

... Hm.

Quote:
Discussing with you is more for personal enjoyment, and I thought a few times if it was appropriate to rather move it to private.


I'm glad to provide some entertainment. I do this partly because I enjoy it, but also partly because there are some causes it's difficult to advance at gunpoint.

Quote:
The extremist wing has already won.... I do not have particularly high hopes on how this war can end well for either side.


Oh, I assure you, it hasn't.

The extremist wing wins when Republic soldiers are directing whole Amarr populations to recant their faith or die-- then shooting them anyway, to ensure the destruction of the culture, sparing only those children too young to have begun their cultural or religious education.

The extremist wing wins when the Empire is not only set ablaze, but reduced to ash; when the Amarrian culture and faith are death marks as absolute and irreversible as True Slave implants; when the only proper solution to the last thousand years of history is accepted to be genocide.

The extremist wing wins when the Amarr are seen to be monsters, and treated accordingly.

That's if your human counterparts embrace extremist views, themselves. Capsuleers are more likely to just start glassing major population centers. If we do so without human ratification (and maybe even with it), we are apt to wind up on the receiving end of a very nasty backlash.

If this whole scenario sounds unlikely, try talking about this topic with Mr. Ixiris. He'll soon educate you on the deeper reaches of impassioned hate.

Then compare his rhetoric with your own, and consider where your use of language is leading your listeners.

Quote:
One of my current pet peeves in this war is ridiculous propaganda of the enemy. For example, claiming that you are not really accept slavery or support the Reclaiming while actively fighting in the 24th Imperial Crusade.


Oh, gods, don't I know it. Only, it's both sides' rhetoric that gives me a headache.

Myyona
Minmatar
Ataraxia Pharmacies
Posted - 2011.07.19 16:48:00 - [41]
 

I would like to thank, not only on the behalf of Ataraxia Pharmacies but also from the people getting a new chance, on pilot Nighstorm´s decision on this matter.

The clients have been through the standard medical examinations and all appear well. They will now be integrated into our reallocation and educational programs which are run in association with SoE at Gicodel station.

Lyn Farel
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2011.07.21 01:01:00 - [42]
 

Firstly, I must apologize for the time it took me to reply. I faced unexpected planetside events that prevented me to even get access to Galnet.

And thank you for your explanations.

I am also very sorry for reacting in such a vitriolic tone, for that it was not suitable and very foolish of me.

Originally by: Arkady Sadik

Why ask if you are not interested in the reply?


Why should I not be interested in the reply ?


Originally by: Arkady Sadik
You defend the status quo.

A quick check of public records shows that you regularly run complexes in the war zone (over 300 in total). That is, you either actively attack the Republic or defend the status quo in the Empire. A quick glimpse to the killboards will show you active in multiple Amarr Militia fleets, both within the Empire and within the Republic, fighting for the status quo of the Empire. You might want to tell yourself that you are "merely protecting the Empire", but that's simply stating the same: You defend the status quo.


It seems to me that there is here a great deal of confusion and mutual misunderstanding about the "statu-quo" meaning. If you speak about a territorial statu-quo, then yes, I support it. You do not ? Would you like to see the Republic expanding itself through the Empire territory ?

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
You support the Amarrian expansion through the old-fashioned reclaiming.

You are a member of the Amarr Militia. The self-description of the 24th Imperial Crusade states rather clearly that It was us who brought civilization to this dark and perilous world [...] We need you to help us save the Minmatar from themselves. Every day you wake up and fight under the banner of the Amarr Militia, this is what you fight for, no matter what you like to tell yourself. By supporting the 24th Imperial Crusade you support the reclaiming.


Dark and perilous world. Which one ? What world ? New eden ? The Amarrian space ? Athra ?

Saving the Minmatar from themselves ? By enslaving them ? By repeling them off ? By talking to them ? By what ?

This has nothing to do with the old Reclaiming, even if some might choose to see it that way.


Originally by: Arkady Sadik
You support slavery.

By supporting the 24th Imperial Crusade you support a number of organizations who like to take and keep slaves. You might tell them in a stern voice that you do not condone their actions, but your deeds support them nonetheless.



I do ? How that is my deeds support them ?

I defend amarrian military complexes that are involved in the territory warfare. I do not help the people you are refering to. I do not take slaves, and I do not try to reclaim any republican system. I speak every day against slavery and occasionaly propose alternatives to it. How do my actions can even make me support them ?

But I would like to hear about the organizations that you are refering to.

Lyn Farel
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2011.07.21 01:27:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Lyn Farel on 21/07/2011 01:36:57
Originally by: Arkady Sadik

On the other hand, I know you work hard to change the Empire from within. I wish you good luck with that effort. Sadly, the reality of the situation means you compromise your own work every day.


Uh, I do not see how. By defending amarrian territory every day, I actually make my work weight a lot more.

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Oh, and also note that I am not telling you to stop your fight for the status quo and the reclaiming. I can fully understand your desire to defend your people from external aggression. I am merely pointing out that your social claims and in-space actions differ.


I did not think either that you were telling me to stop.

And this is not "my people", firstly I do not own them, secondly, my people is humanity. Factionalism is a destructive nonsense. Which can unfortunately make my social claims and in-space actions differ is the difference in scale involved in each of them. I can sadly not be fighting everywhere I would like, and I choosed the defence of the territorial statu quo on the Republic/Empire border. If I could, I would be at many other places in the same time, but capsuleers are not omnipotent yet.

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Yes, the Sebiestor are my people, as are the Minmatar. You might not understand "my people" correctly; it's not a statement of property. I know that is the first thought an Amarrian would have.


I am no Amarrian.

And I understood it perfectly well, though I wanted to point out that your statement is ambigous.

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
"Babbling in a different language", actually. Language changes over time, though. Terms are used to refer to a specific concept. Communication happens when a term is used and the referenced concept is understood. Trying to argue that the term that you perfectly well understood does not really mean what you understood is irrelevant.

If you want to go down that path, I could remind you what a "crusade" actually means, which is what you participate in.


Languages change over time and I did perfectly well understand the meaning of your statement, as you say. I am sorry but I never expressed that this does not mean what I understood (ie, barbaric = savage). I said it is ambiguous. Ambiguousity is usually dangerous when present within debates.

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
I do feel that Ms. Farel wants the right things, but lacks the courage to actually do them.


Actually, I think I do. If you are suggesting me to leave my service to the Empire - service that only serves what is going in non destructive ways toward the Republic - it would be totally counter productive to what I am doing. The results are already here, on the IGS, and several other places. My work on the IGS is more or less done now. It would not have been possible if I was listening to people telling me the same thing that you did, and you are definitly not the first one.

And you do not even have a clue about what I am really doing in space, as I have never seen you around in space. You speak over speculation, and I am afraid, of what pleases/suits you best.

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
her being a loyalist means that she tolerates slavery when it benefits the Empire.


I am sorry but I do not. If I had the necessary influence and power, I would take care of that issue once and for all. Obviously, I have not, and you even less than myself. Only solution for me to the mentionned problem : continue to work toward a change as much as my influence can weight to achieve that change.

Your conclusions are always hasty and simplistic. Which is usually the very essence of every extremism.


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only