These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

FAO: [TS-F] and Affiliates
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ollie Rundle
#61 - 2013-09-12 02:13:24 UTC
Silas Vitalia wrote:
Neither you nor anyone in your little merry band are capable of stoking much fire in anyone, sweety.

A forum response to your statement is not quite the great fire rising/ bait taking sort of thing you seem to imagine it to be.


And yet you've seen fit to respond not once but twice beyond your original remark now. Granted you've really not said too much of any significance, but that glimpse of the real you we keep catching is perhaps enough that we live in hope.
Ollie Rundle
#62 - 2013-09-12 02:30:33 UTC
Natalcya Katla wrote:
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Law serves justice and justice is only possible if there is moral authorship of actions by individuals.

Law serves social order. "Justice" is only valuable to the extent to which it contributes to maintain a stable society.


A fair point.

Ms. Polevhia has already implied that Nation - as interpreted by herself at the very least - does comply to a set of laws which she finds agreeable.

In your opinion does justice, as defined by you here (or with further definition if need be), have a place in Sansha Kuvakei's vision for humanity?

If so, what form does it take and are there any aspects of it you would personally prefer to see altered?
Evi Polevhia
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#63 - 2013-09-12 03:46:21 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
I don't want to nitpick but doesn't "any set of laws or moralities" imply that she got rid of morals and law altogether? If she'd have wanted to imply that she cast aside her old set, wouldn't it be rather "some set of laws and moralities"?

What she said was in essence that survival of humanity is more important than law and morality. My counter was that without law and morality humanity is lost already.


You do a really good job of quoting me out of context. Here is the full line, as I said it, and as you quoted originally.

Evi Polevhia wrote:
And because I thought the future of Humanity was more important then any set of laws or moralities that I used to subscribe to I let go of my prejudice against Nation.


There is a difference between "any set of laws or moralities" and "any set of laws or moralities that I used to subscribe to".

Some time ago I lost all the Dragoons that I used to own. Not, I may note, 'all the Dragoons'. Do you see the importance in my statement that you dropped off?
Makkal Hanaya
Revenent Defence Corperation
#64 - 2013-09-12 04:37:02 UTC
Natalcya Katla wrote:
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Law serves justice and justice is only possible if there is moral authorship of actions by individuals.

Law serves social order. "Justice" is only valuable to the extent to which it contributes to maintain a stable society.

I am unsure as to whether this is a disagreement with Captain Mithra or an addendum.

Render unto Khanid the things which are Khanid's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#65 - 2013-09-12 10:12:40 UTC
Evi Polevhia wrote:
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
I don't want to nitpick but doesn't "any set of laws or moralities" imply that she got rid of morals and law altogether? If she'd have wanted to imply that she cast aside her old set, wouldn't it be rather "some set of laws and moralities"?

What she said was in essence that survival of humanity is more important than law and morality. My counter was that without law and morality humanity is lost already.


You do a really good job of quoting me out of context. Here is the full line, as I said it, and as you quoted originally.

Evi Polevhia wrote:
And because I thought the future of Humanity was more important then any set of laws or moralities that I used to subscribe to I let go of my prejudice against Nation.


There is a difference between "any set of laws or moralities" and "any set of laws or moralities that I used to subscribe to".

Some time ago I lost all the Dragoons that I used to own. Not, I may note, 'all the Dragoons'. Do you see the importance in my statement that you dropped off?


Ah, a fair point.

But if you let go of any set of laws or moralities that you used to subscribe to, which set of moralities and laws are you left with? Which set of laws and moralities do you utilize to assess the moral acceptability of the Sansha ideology?

The qualification you insist on - rightfully - is inconsequential to my point. If you loose all the Dragoons you used to own, you're left without Dragoons, no? I maintain my point that you apparently cast law and morality aside before subscribing to the Sansha ideology.
Confliktus
Perkone
Caldari State
#66 - 2013-09-12 11:43:58 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:

There is a difference between being unable to speak about our motivations and not caring to do so.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no reason for you to know. Unless you join Nation, we are opposed to you, by simple fact of historical inertia and the past actions that have been visited on us. As much as I, personally, would love to keep an open mind about these things, reality dictates my actions and that of my compatriots.


Wait a minute, are you saying that in order to understand the actions of the Nation's members and its group of hangers on we actually need to join them?

Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:

You do not have our best interests at heart; That being kept in mind, this thread and other threads like it are obvious traps designed to play upon some need to be somehow 'understood' in order to draw us into a rhetorically untenable position. To find a crack in our solidarity, and try to pick at it.


Why should the other factions have your so-called " best interests" at heart? If you review the past history of the Nation and its counterparts you'll see that something went horribly wrong there, the latest incursions speak for themselves. I would say its funny to watch the Nation's supporter opinions regarding the matter as to what you call a "rhetorically untenable position" ... a position in wich you put yourselves on in the first place.

Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:

This being the case, it is not in OUR best interests to respond to these threads as though they were legitimate attempts at reaching out. We know they are not. You know they are not. We would rather spend our time building our Utopia and weakening your positions in comparison.


Secondly, we have no need to be understood by outsiders. Bring your ships against us. Attempt to stop us from building our Utopia. You will not succeed, because we are not only the best way of doing things, we are the only tenable path for humanity to save itself from going over the brink. We exercise His will, as it is dictated to us, because He has seen a path through the darkness.



Well two points here, you are building an Utopia, an impossible thing , still, granted that you are atempint to build "the perfect society", then wouldn't it be benefitial to you to show that there is place for debate in it? That if your society is so advanced in its form of human sociology and thinking that by debating some points with other capsuleers the benefits you reap would surpass your actuall stance of superiority towards us lesser minds?

Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:

If, heh, I may be permitted to go poetic for a moment.

The information is out there for people to make informed decisions if they are able to track it down and digest it with an unbiased mind. Frankly, and this will come as a shock to some of you, we don't want people to understand us who aren't able to put in the time and mental effort to track it down and interpret it for themselves. That sort of person will end up doing whatever they are asked, no matter who is asking them or the methods used to coerce co-operation.


Strangely i get the distinct impression that you are discribing your little group of hangers on in that last paragraph of yours...
Natalcya Katla
Astropolitan Front
#67 - 2013-09-12 12:23:01 UTC
Ollie Rundle wrote:
In your opinion does justice, as defined by you here (or with further definition if need be), have a place in Sansha Kuvakei's vision for humanity?

If so, what form does it take and are there any aspects of it you would personally prefer to see altered?

That's a difficult question. I am of course not consulted by Sansha Kuvakei in matters of legislation, I am not part of any shared consciousness network, and I spend most of my time in CONCORD space, living by CONCORD law. Your question would really be better directed at a fully integrated True Citizen. That said, I will offer my perspective, with the caveat that it night not be a fully accurate and objective understanding.

Justice is usually used in accordance with a sense of right or wrong in criminal matters and in internal disputes. As far as I am aware, crime and internal dispute hardly exist at all within the Nation. In addition, when a whole lot of people share a consciousness, punishing any single individual becomes a somewhat absurd idea. It would be a bit like, after suffering an infection, deciding to punish the afflicted limb. From my perspective it makes more sense to say that Nation law is guided by a sense of collective health and hygiene rather than justice in any traditional sense of the word.

Perhaps a case could be made that Nation law is just in that it is blind to traditional divisions along lines of ethnicity, gender and numerous other demographic groups - but again, when people exist within a shared consciousness, such divisions become meaningless anyway.
Evi Polevhia
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#68 - 2013-09-12 12:50:41 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
If you loose all the Dragoons you used to own, you're left without Dragoons, no? I maintain my point that you apparently cast law and morality aside before subscribing to the Sansha ideology.


Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:

Just to clarify, she didn't say she got rid of Laws and Morality. She got rid of her OLD laws and morality.

New structures are required for a new world.


Pilot Mithra, I do not use Dragoons any more. I use Corax's. Does this answer your question?
Ollie Rundle
#69 - 2013-09-13 00:23:02 UTC
Natalcya Katla wrote:
That's a difficult question. I am of course not consulted by Sansha Kuvakei in matters of legislation, I am not part of any shared consciousness network, and I spend most of my time in CONCORD space, living by CONCORD law. Your question would really be better directed at a fully integrated True Citizen. That said, I will offer my perspective, with the caveat that it night not be a fully accurate and objective understanding.

Justice is usually used in accordance with a sense of right or wrong in criminal matters and in internal disputes. As far as I am aware, crime and internal dispute hardly exist at all within the Nation. In addition, when a whole lot of people share a consciousness, punishing any single individual becomes a somewhat absurd idea. It would be a bit like, after suffering an infection, deciding to punish the afflicted limb. From my perspective it makes more sense to say that Nation law is guided by a sense of collective health and hygiene rather than justice in any traditional sense of the word.

Perhaps a case could be made that Nation law is just in that it is blind to traditional divisions along lines of ethnicity, gender and numerous other demographic groups - but again, when people exist within a shared consciousness, such divisions become meaningless anyway.


Thank you for your answer and the effort you've clearly made with it.

It is a difficult question but as our conflict is largely one of ideology these difficult questions are the obstacles we need to negotiate around.

I also note that you're not a True Citizen and the definitive limitations on your perspective that that genuinely implies. I suppose I was trying to ascertain how deeply you'd considered this question (and questions like it) before finding whatever common ground you share with Kuvakei's system.

Ignoring the debatable premise of crime and internal dispute being virtually non-existent within Nation I can't really find too much to fault in your points. Perhaps then it is the concept of justice as a form of 'punishment' that we should be considering as able to sacrificed. In a system where the participants are part of a shared consciousness, your analogy of punishing the "afflicted limb" instead becomes an amputation (or resection if you prefer) aiming not to penalise but rather to cauterise for the greater good of the "collective health".

Some will consider this semantics, no doubt. But it's not really the same as the justice practised by most societies today is it? Under the system you propose there is no great value placed on the proof of guilt or innocence of the individual and no aim to punish or rehabilitate them once judgement is passed. While it's possible they could be taken aside and re-indoctrinated I don't believe this is consistent with what we know of Nation's internal function. It seems more likely that the only form of reintegration into society a defective component will see is as part of the biological matrix of future True Slaves. Only the collective and its ongoing stability matters.

If it's an accurate representation of how justice is applied in Nation then I'd dare say it's reflective of Kuvakei's Caldari heritage, albeit passed through a mirror darkly.

Have I read your meaning fairly? If not, let me know where errors have been made.