Intergalactic Summit

With respects, Lady Newelle, this thread wasn't intended to be a debate about whether Slavery as good or bad, but a discussion of what Slavery IS and ISN'T. Lady Mithra contributed something of the scriptural background, Samira contributed some of her insights as a former slave and your husband contributed some insights as one who is a literal defender of the institution.

Now, you're a Lady Holder and someone who is legally entitled to hold slaves. Do you hold slaves? How do you make use of them? Do you use them in an economic capacity - to make money for your house?

You're in a position to have a conversation about slavery that is not simply a reiteration of "It's Bad" and "No it isn't". Would that interest you?

The average poor man is probably about as materially well off as your average slave in the empire, however, material well-being is not the only thing measured when comparing quality of life. And economists quite frequently concern themselves with studies on overall quality of life: after all, economics is not just about money.

There are studies that show that religious people are much happier for it, whilst there are similar studies showing that peoples' happiness closely correlates with their degree of individual freedom, to a similar degree. So in terms of nonmaterial happiness, I'd say the Empire and the Federation are probably about even. It would be interesting to see studies regarding an individually free, religious group of people.

Another thing to consider regarding well-being and slavery, with your comparison of the imperial slave to the poor Gallentean, is that the Federation and Caldari State both possess sizable, strong middle classes relative to the Empire and the Republic. The Empire's slave cast is roughly 50% of its entire population, while the middle class in the Federation and State are roughly 50-75%, with the impoverished numbering less than that, though still a quite sizeable plurality. So the proportion of people living in that material state is lower in the Federation and the State. These people are the people I believe were served most by individual freedom: they would've likely been poor otherwise. So, with the presence of a large middle class in governments that have not experienced slavery in centuries, and the absence of the middle class in regions that have either hosted or been the victim of slavery, that's a bit damning, particularly since these middle class Feds and State citizens characteristically change careers of their own volition in order to take advantage of new structural economic opportunities which may be applicable to someone of their skillset, knowledge, and proclivities, something you simply cannot do in a slave economy built on strict social hierarchy and hegemonic socio-economic power structures. I know some may be tempted to shout that obnoxious cliche truism, "correlation doesn't mean causation", but that's only relevant if no causal link can otherwise be established outside of pure correlation. It's also not true that things which are correlated are never causal, indeed, all things which are causally linked also correlate. I hope my argument sufficiently establishes the beginnings of a causal link enough to convince you, perhaps, of the economic inefficiencies of slavery, which Pieter touched on earlier. The Empire could be a much larger economy if it did not cling to such an antiquated model, although understandably these massive economic changes are risky and take some time, they are still worth doing.

One more thing: your repeated tu quoque fallacy is noted yet even more irrelevant since, once again, I am not a Federal citizen and do not pledge allegiance to the Federation.

So please, stop with the weak "but the Federation!" arguments. They're completely irrelevant to me and my arguments.

That is going a bit far. They have indefinite custodianship of those slaves, but that's something quite separate from having the same ownership rights as full Holders. Ammatar slavemasters cannot purchase slaves from legitimate Holders, and they don't have the authority to own slaves made during criminal sentencing.



Considering that Ammatar cannot purchase slaves from true Holders and do not have ownership over criminals sentenced to slavery, I can't see many circumstances where you'd encounter this.

I'm getting a bit of carpel tunnel writing all of this back and forth, so I'm instead going to extend an invitation to talk about the issue to any interested party, particularly those I've had the pleasure of talking with so far who'd like to continue the discussion.

Categorically impossible. The very term 'lesser race' is bounded not by the spiritual or ethical development of a group, but by their membership in a particular race. And really, if you're going to go bringing ethics into this, the very idea that an aggressive, murderous power making war on a peaceful people with no capacity to resist them is the more ethical party in that equation is insane. It is laughable. It is the equivalent of claiming that kicking a sleeping toddler is a sign of being more ethically developed than the toddler.



Then maybe you shouldn't be claiming it doesn't mean that, the way you just did. In fact, here's an idea: if you're going to defend someone's use of a term, maybe you should understand what the term means before you defend it, and not try to defend a completely different definition that doesn't match the term you're defending.

Seriously. All you needed to say there was 'I don't agree with Blake's phrasing', rather than trying to defend his use of it.



So someone growing up among a bunch of murderous religious zealots who run roughshod over the basic human rights of other beings might not be a great judge of morality?

Noted. At least that, we can agree on.



Sure. That's the important part. If you feel like it. If not... eh. Maybe you'll just murder a whole planet in a fit of pique, and suffer absolutely no repercussions. Kill a furrier, and you might lose your hand if it belongs to someone else. Kill a planet? Eh, whatever.

Such responsibility for others and their physical and spiritual uplift and well-being, there.



The entire framing of the 'Purity of the Throne' conflict calls out this lie. The rebels claimed Catiz wasn't pure, and couldn't be Empress, because she's Udorian. The Emperor Family, the Navy, the Theology Council, every single institution of Amarr power responded not that 'Of course Udorians can be Emperors or Empresses', but 'don't be silly, of course she's pure. She's True Amarr.'

Not a single word of 'being Udorian isn't a problem', but only emphasizing how she was totally pure and True Amarr and stuff.

What's next? 'I can't be a racist, I have Minmatar friends'?

I must disagree with you. There are scriptures that speak to the taking and owning of slaves, codes of conduct, and inspirations for our laws and regulations governing the practice, Ms Kernher.



If I do not understand the manual for my engine, I consult an engineer, not a botanist. I choose to abide by the interpretations of those that have spent their lives devoted to studying Scripture and to those that came before them. They dwarf my knowledge of The Word, and are infinitely more wise in their meaning than the likes of you.



And where are the Jove now? Succumbed to their sins, yet the Empire stands.

I do, numbering around twenty thousand. I aquire more as I am able.

They do everything from hard labor to research to duties as a handmaiden.


They do generate income, but not enough to cover the costs of keeping them. It is a divine duty to be perfomed, not a business enterprise. I am blessed with the wealth of a capsuleer, a luxury that some of my baseliner peers do not possess so they may make different choices in how they fulfill said duty.


Yes, and your questions warrant such responses.

I shall also add that while we do abide by the a majority of the SPCS(Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Slaves) guidelines, we do not possess the SPCS Seal of Approval for Slave Handling.

These things are not the Jove you spoke of, but something different.

Ms Arrendis,

my explanation is only categorically impossible under your personal interpretation. Nor am I defending someone's use of a term: I give the most charitable interpretation as explanation of it's meaning, as is good practice in such matters. I still noted that I oppose it for the connotations that allow for less charitable interpretation.

The entire framing of the 'Purity of the Throne' conflict only calls my words a lie if you one-sidedly stick to the understanding of 'purity' as meaning racial/ethnical purity. The crucial point there is, though, not to let the "purists" decide on language use and deny them to appropriate that term for their cause: Purity is not a racial thing. Scripture never speaks of the "Amarr race" but of the "Amarr people". That is quite astute as in the founding times it's either difficult to make out one single ethnicity on Amarr or they are the same race and ethnicity as the Assimians - differing only in religious views.

Similarly, Scripture itself gives clear criteria for 'purity':
"But the people of Amarr lived righteously and in fear of God.
Thus they were saved and became God's chosen."

Righteousness and fear of God are - from ancient times onwards - the two hallmarks of purity and of truely belonging to the Amarr - the people chosen by God.

So, of course Catiz I is pure and truely Amarr, as she lives righteously and in fear of God.
To understand it in terms of racial purity would be hilariously dumb, as there is no secret and no doubt about the Udorian heritage that's preserved in the Tash-Murkon family.

Well, as an engineer, let me start off by saying you blew your analogy as soon as you hit the word 'engineer'. Should've been 'mechanic', or maybe 'material sciences researcher'. See, here's the problem: Your theologians have an idea of what the Word means. (And remember, we're still assuming 100% perfectly correct Word of God here), but they've no way to verify or conduct experiments to find out if they're wrong or not. Worse, they don't really know why it means that—if they're even correct. The engineer doesn't just know what the engine does, it knows how it does it, and why the materials represented by the engine actually do what it does, the way it does, because of the configuration they're in.

The engineer understands the engine completely. The theologian might be able to tell you what the mind of God caused to be written, but he doesn't understand it. He only knows the results. He can't tell you how it exists, he can't tell you why that's what's written down. He really can't tell you with 100% accuracy what it means. He can only study it, same as you, and give you his interpretation, which we've already established is going to be imperfect.

And that's where your argument to authority completely fails. Arguing from authority is a logical fallacy to begin with, and this is why: You can't add an imperfect interpretor without adding error. And you can't filter that error back out again without the ability to test your conclusions.

Let's say the best scholars, after 2 centuries of work, can give you a 90% accurate interpretation of scripture. Building on one another's work, you'd think they'd get more accurate. But without the ability to test for error, they can only build in more of a margin of error.

Let's assume for a moment that each scholar builds upon the work of his immediate predecessor by studying both the Word and his predecessor's work. The first scholar only has the Word, so his work comes in 90% correct. Now, if this were science, we could know what bits are wrong, because we can test stuff. Then Scholar #2 would only have to be working on making that 90% correct, and the amount of error would go down.

But we're not.

So instead, Scholar #2 has to work with all of Scholar #1's work. He can't tell which is right and which isn't, so he goes back to Scripture. We're going to be generous here, and say that each Scholar goes back to Scripture and gives it an equal amount of focus as a primary source. So Scholar #2 is working with 1 100% accurate source, and 1 90% accurate source, for an average accuracy of 95%. His research yields a final result that's 85.5% accu-whoooops.

Turns out, that whole model, after only 4 generations of research and study, settles into a static point where the final research is roughly 82% accurate, and the next guy is working with an average accuracy of around 91% in his source material. After 30 generations? Still 82/91. And we were being generous.

Now let's look at what happens if you involve actual people.

Each Scholar is now working with the complete body of his predecessors' work. The human mind is a pattern-matching engine. It's what we're good at. You might even say it's how we were designed. I wouldn't say that, but that's because I don't believe we were designed. But you might. So when patterns show up in previous work, our scholars latch onto them. When they don't, but they expect them? Well, the human mind has a tendency to find patterns where none exist, like in clouds and constellations. So our scholars this time are just incorporating scripture as an equal primary source... with all of their predecessors. And wow, does this go south, fast.

After 1 generation, Scholar #1's research is 90% accurate, just as it was before. He's the lucky one. His research wasn't fouled by anyone else's errors. Scholar #2, though, comes in at 81% accuracy. That 4th-gen scholar who leveled things out in the first group? Well, in this group, he'd be down to 76%—already 6% off his game. And by Scholar #30... 62% accuracy.

All because none of it is falsifiable, so you can't filter out the errors. Instead, your margin of error just keeps expanding.

No matter what happens, you cannot introduce more sources of error without the ability to test for that error and expect to get anything but more errors.

In the end, you're better off reading the Scriptures yourself, and trusting God to reveal what he wants you to see, instead of trusting the guidance of fallible humans beings who can't help but be wrong about part of it... and especially people who've a vested interest in making sure their interpretations of scripture prop up their own aspirations for power.