These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

PIE: Resurgence and Peace
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Shintoko Akahoshi
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2013-05-22 17:51:52 UTC
Though I have to admit I'm amused at the description of Slavery 1.0. By that logic, after Colelie, the Republic are slavers.

Can we have a GalNet rule specifically to cover this? We can call it Shin's Law: "Any debate which goes on long enough will eventually be cast in terms of slavery."

Bio and writing

(Nothing I say is indicative of corporate policy unless otherwise stated)
Cipher7
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2013-05-22 18:06:48 UTC

The Federation is free to make their own decisions.

Decisions have consequences.
Shintoko Akahoshi
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2013-05-22 18:14:17 UTC
"Do what I say or I will hurt you"

I'm a big fan of consequences.

Bio and writing

(Nothing I say is indicative of corporate policy unless otherwise stated)
Makkal Hanaya
Revenent Defence Corperation
#44 - 2013-05-22 18:28:50 UTC
Shintoko Akahoshi wrote:
Though I have to admit I'm amused at the description of Slavery 1.0. By that logic, after Colelie, the Republic are slavers.

Can we have a GalNet rule specifically to cover this? We can call it Shin's Law: "Any debate which goes on long enough will eventually be cast in terms of slavery."

I want to start a thread on the superiority of red velvet cake and see if Shin's Law kicks in.

Render unto Khanid the things which are Khanid's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Karmilla Strife
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#45 - 2013-05-22 18:35:16 UTC
Red velvet cake is a product of slavery since it is made with flour. The bulk of the cluster's grain comes from the Empire. Since anyone who benefits from slavery or doesn't actively oppose it can be considered a slaver, anyone enjoying cake, is a slaver.
Cipher7
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2013-05-22 18:58:48 UTC
Shintoko Akahoshi wrote:
"Do what I say or I will hurt you"

I'm a big fan of consequences.


Like Caldari Prime?

Quite the paradox, humanity is full of them like "fighting for peace" or "enforcing freedom."

At the end of the day ppl do what they think is right, live how they want.

Just don't call yourself "righteous" or I might accidentally have a fit of uncontrollable laughter.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#47 - 2013-05-22 20:16:45 UTC
Anabella Rella wrote:
Lyn Farel wrote:
Considering the impressive amount of occurrences of the word "race" in this "discussion" - even "race traitor" - this "discussion" is starting to flirt with ridicule and absurdity.

Races apply for dogs.



Races also apply to humans. Or, are you going to try to say that we're all absolutely physically identical with no distinctive anatomical and/or physiological characteristics? Please... Roll

So what's your point anyway, Farel? Do you have one or do you just enjoy climbing down from your mountain of wisdom every so often to grace us mortals with your presence? If the former, please state your case rather than pontificating. If the latter, well, please just keep your thoughts to yourself.



Species apply to humans. And subspecies is the word you are looking for if you want to point at physiological differences due to geographical isolation over long periods of time.

Race apply for dogs or plants and every artificially created species and subspecies through repeated and selective interbreeding.

My point is simply that your drivels about race traitors, aside from being completely inaccurate, is ethically obnoxious. Being a traitor to a pug nose, slit eyes, white skin or dark skin sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#48 - 2013-05-22 20:21:50 UTC
Cipher7 wrote:


Call it a culture if you want instead of race. Race is just easier to type.


Or intellectual laziness.

Cipher7 wrote:

The Federation is free to make their own decisions.

Decisions have consequences.


Slaves are also free to make their own decisions. It might of course be bad for their health.

Cipher7 wrote:
Shintoko Akahoshi wrote:
"Do what I say or I will hurt you"

I'm a big fan of consequences.


Like Caldari Prime?

Quite the paradox, humanity is full of them like "fighting for peace" or "enforcing freedom."

At the end of the day ppl do what they think is right, live how they want.

Just don't call yourself "righteous" or I might accidentally have a fit of uncontrollable laughter.


Like a lot of conflicts and galactic events. But it still fits to your definition of slavery 1.0. I think that definition might be incomplete.
Makkal Hanaya
Revenent Defence Corperation
#49 - 2013-05-22 20:58:37 UTC
Karmilla Strife wrote:
Red velvet cake is a product of slavery since it is made with flour. The bulk of the cluster's grain comes from the Empire. Since anyone who benefits from slavery or doesn't actively oppose it can be considered a slaver, anyone enjoying cake, is a slaver.

Note to self: Serve pudding to any anti-slavery types I have dinner with.

Render unto Khanid the things which are Khanid's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Anabella Rella
Gradient
Electus Matari
#50 - 2013-05-22 21:30:12 UTC
You want to play the pedant and semanticist with me, Farel? You should consult an electronic dictionary first:

Race: noun, 1. A group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. A population so related. 4. A group of tribes or people forming an ethnic stock.

By those definitions I indeed used the word correctly and it's you who are spouting drivel and attempting to pass it off as fact.

When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around.
Makkal Hanaya
Revenent Defence Corperation
#51 - 2013-05-22 21:41:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Makkal Hanaya
When referring to morphologically distinct groups in domesticated plants and animals, the common term is 'breed' for animals and 'cultivar' for plants. For undomesticated animals, the preferred term is 'landrace.'

Race, when applied to humans, can refer to anything from anatomical to genetic to linguistic to religious differences. We can even talk about 'the human race.'

Render unto Khanid the things which are Khanid's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#52 - 2013-05-22 21:43:01 UTC
Lyn Farel wrote:
Anabella Rella wrote:
Lyn Farel wrote:
Considering the impressive amount of occurrences of the word "race" in this "discussion" - even "race traitor" - this "discussion" is starting to flirt with ridicule and absurdity.

Races apply for dogs.



Races also apply to humans. Or, are you going to try to say that we're all absolutely physically identical with no distinctive anatomical and/or physiological characteristics? Please... Roll

So what's your point anyway, Farel? Do you have one or do you just enjoy climbing down from your mountain of wisdom every so often to grace us mortals with your presence? If the former, please state your case rather than pontificating. If the latter, well, please just keep your thoughts to yourself.



Species apply to humans. And subspecies is the word you are looking for if you want to point at physiological differences due to geographical isolation over long periods of time.

Race apply for dogs or plants and every artificially created species and subspecies through repeated and selective interbreeding.

My point is simply that your drivels about race traitors, aside from being completely inaccurate, is ethically obnoxious. Being a traitor to a pug nose, slit eyes, white skin or dark skin sounds pretty ridiculous to me.


Actually it's not races that applies to dogs, but breeds.

Dolce et decorum est pro Imperium mori
Cipher7
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2013-05-22 22:17:46 UTC
Lyn Farel wrote:
Cipher7 wrote:


Call it a culture if you want instead of race. Race is just easier to type.


Or intellectual laziness.


Brevity is the soul of wit.

"Race traitor" is shorter than "Ethno-cultural disassociative lapdog" but it means the same thing.

If the shoe fits wear it.

Lyn Farel wrote:

Slaves are also free to make their own decisions. It might of course be bad for their health.


or yours.

Lyn Farel wrote:

Like a lot of conflicts and galactic events. But it still fits to your definition of slavery 1.0. I think that definition might be incomplete.


My point was made. Doublespeak just twists it into circular logic.

"bu bu anybody can coerce anybody"

You don't say.

"bu bu that's slavery too"

Yeah no, not really.

Matters of state always involve some level of coercion ie "do this or else" but that's govts coercing each other.

Individuals coercing each other is universally shunned. Forced prostitution, human trafficking, slavery, piracy, robbery these are social ills.

If you don't know the difference between political pressure and social diseases, please ask a parent, they'll explain it alot better than I can.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#54 - 2013-05-22 22:44:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyn Farel
Cipher7 wrote:


Lyn Farel wrote:

Slaves are also free to make their own decisions. It might of course be bad for their health.


or yours.


What does my health has to do with that ? Is that a threat of some kind ?
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#55 - 2013-05-22 23:00:57 UTC
Anabella Rella wrote:
You want to play the pedant and semanticist with me, Farel? You should consult an electronic dictionary first:

Race: noun, 1. A group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. A population so related. 4. A group of tribes or people forming an ethnic stock.

By those definitions I indeed used the word correctly and it's you who are spouting drivel and attempting to pass it off as fact.


Thank you for correcting me. Breed it was. I should know better.

Thank you either way for not addressing my point though.
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#56 - 2013-05-22 23:08:17 UTC
Watching this thread is like watching sexual tension between socially awkward people.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn
Aldrith Shutaq
Atash e Sarum Vanguard
#57 - 2013-05-22 23:49:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Aldrith Shutaq
Calm down people, it's just a speech.

A speech heralding your imminent enslavement and the destruction of everything you know and love in a terrifying, yet divinely beautiful, volley of laser fire.

Move along people.

Aldrith Ter'neth Shutaq Newelle

Fleet Captain of the Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris

Divine Commodore of the 24th Imperial Crusade

Lord Consort of Lady Mitara Newelle, Champion of House Sarum and Holder of Damnidios Para'nashu
Katarina Musana
Clan Leshya Offworld Venture Enterprise
#58 - 2013-05-23 00:32:31 UTC
Sepherim wrote:
Do you have any proof of this claim? Because those are ilegal activities and should be reported to the authorities so they can be handled. But then, if you have no proof...


There was proof of Amarrian military involvement in the raid that killed my husband a decade ago. It was presented. The Empire claimed that the soldiers involved were not acting under orders and were not on active duty at the time it occurred, and that it was an isolated incident. That's not the only time Amarrian soldiers have been found involved in these slave raids, however.

Quote:
It is true, war doesn't equate to Reclaiming. Amarrian wars against external hostiles usually do. And don't believe that because we name it Reclaiming we can forget that you started it.


This just brings us back to the previous argument we've had, one that's not going to be reconciled until one side or the other wins the war and writes the history books according to their perspective.

Quote:
Quote:
No, it really doesn't. First, there had been continued attempts at negotiation with the Federation, all of which failed. Second, no statement has been made by the Tribal Council as to the exact reasons for the battle at Colelie, so any speculation as to the reason it occurred and whether or not there really was justification is just that, speculation.


I see, so the failure in diplomacy justifies military action, instead of further diplomacy?

I don't completely disagree with this statement, don't take me wrong, I just want to make it clear.


As I said at the end of the statement, we can only speculate as to whether or not there was justification for the action. It depends on whether or not there's further information we don't have yet and what that information is, if it exists.

But yes, failure in diplomacy can potentially justify military action, as much as military action can be justified anyway. There's a lot of factors involved in determining that, however.
Sepherim
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2013-05-23 01:27:11 UTC
Katarina Musana wrote:
There was proof of Amarrian military involvement in the raid that killed my husband a decade ago. It was presented. The Empire claimed that the soldiers involved were not acting under orders and were not on active duty at the time it occurred, and that it was an isolated incident. That's not the only time Amarrian soldiers have been found involved in these slave raids, however.


I'd like to see the proof, mostly to analyze and see who is responsible. Don't take me wrong, there have indeed been raids to capture slaves, but those are minor illegal issues: a small party, maybe with some backing, capturing small groups. And they are illegal, if we discover them, they are put to trial as is appropriate. Illegal things happen everywhere: you illegally free our slaves, others use blockade runners to move illegal goods around, etc.

But one thing is the illegal actions of a small group of law breaking individuals, and another is a full fledged invasion backed by a government. Both leagues are completely different.

Quote:
This just brings us back to the previous argument we've had, one that's not going to be reconciled until one side or the other wins the war and writes the history books according to their perspective.


That's true. It's best we leave it then. May history decide, then.

Quote:
As I said at the end of the statement, we can only speculate as to whether or not there was justification for the action. It depends on whether or not there's further information we don't have yet and what that information is, if it exists.

But yes, failure in diplomacy can potentially justify military action, as much as military action can be justified anyway. There's a lot of factors involved in determining that, however.


Very well, point is indeed clear. Thank you for the clarification.

Sepherim Catillah Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris Liuteneant Ex-Imperial Navy Imperator Commander
Cipher7
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2013-05-23 01:33:14 UTC
Lyn Farel wrote:
Cipher7 wrote:


Lyn Farel wrote:

Slaves are also free to make their own decisions. It might of course be bad for their health.


or yours.


What does my health has to do with that ? Is that a threat of some kind ?


Slaves rebel, incidents happen, people die.

Unnecessary friction.

Wasteful, impractical.

When you have a flawed system, you don't need to do anything, it implodes on its own.

Slavery isn't some "advantage." It's a weight around your own necks.