Intergalactic Summit

And there the usual people fall for the bait, as expected, even when they're told that it is bait.

Even so, the article does have a point in a way despite being generally trash - that certain Caldari celebrate the intentional murder of millions of non-combatants as a heroic act beyond compare, having even based the Chimera on the Kairiola as a rather perverted memento, and personally, I find it disgusting. While I can understand why they think so highly of those who did such things, I don't approve of the cults built around them.
Last I checked, most Gallente who aren't loudmouth nationalists (and capsuleers) aren't proud of the Caldari-Gallente war or events that lead up to it, but they just have to live with that stain on their collective history.
On more recent issues, when the FNS Wandering Saint hit the Ishukone Headquarters, most Gallente were just as heartbroken and mortified as the Caldari were. They did not start celebrating in the streets, because in their hearts everyone must have known what could have followed after that, and, in fact later did.

I hope that the Caldari capsuleers I've had the displeasure to meet here are not representative of the whole of the State, just like I don't consider most Gallente capsuleers shining specimens of the Federation either.

Are you really daft enough that you don't understand the idea that humanity, with the notable exception of a few sects of barbarian savages, really does agree that indiscriminate bloodshed is bad, and civilians should be shielded from the worst aspects of violent conflict?

Oh, it´s not about how, it´s about who gets killed? (What one word in the wrong place can´t do!) Sound a lot like ancient cultures that made live sacrifices of selected members of it´s population for ancient gods. Not that we do it now, we´re... what was the word? Civilized

Neither How nor Who, it´s about Why then?

You're really overgeneralizing here, you know.

1. Humanity generally agrees that killing other humans is wrong, in the abstract sense. It's an outgrowth of hardwired empathy (except in the case of sociopaths) and self-interest.

2. Humanity also generally agrees that someone might still try to kill you. If someone tries to kill you, or you see someone trying to kill someone else, you should stop them, and it's regrettable, but ok, if you have to kill them to do it.

3. Humans, in aggregate, have agendas that benefit the group.

4. Groups can have agendas that conflict with the agendas of other groups.

5. Most of humanity (again, there are sociopaths and barbarian savages out there) agrees that when conflict arises, these groups should attempt to resolve these conflicts in mutually-beneficial ways. One of the most basic benefits available is 'nobody in my group ends up dead'.

6. Everyone (except again, some specific sects of barbarian savages who may or may not be sociopaths) agrees that nobody is perfect. Everyone screws up sometimes, and unfortunately, those screw-ups don't always happen in isolation.

7. As a result of the combination of (1), (2), (4), (5), and (6), big enough groups tend to maintain sub-sections of the group whose job is to protect the lives of members of the group. These sub-sections also serve as a deterrent against (6) in another group.
7a. It is generally understood that membership in these sub-sections includes a willingness to place (2) and (3) above one's personal self-interest in not dying.

8. (4) + (6) happens. (7) isn't always enough of a deterrent. We call this 'war'.
8a. Sometimes, the (4) that causes (8) isn't even about (6), it's about (2). Because even though (2), there's always those savage barbarian sociopaths.

9. Given (1) and (5), it's generally acknowledged that (8) is a (6), and that in the big picture, nobody really wants it, but that it happens anyway.

10. As a result of the general agreement on (9), (1), and (2), when (8) happens, there are rules that generally intend to limit the loss of life to (7), who accept this risk as indicated in (7a).

So, yes, even when war breaks out, human society overall (barbarian savage sociopaths potentially excepted) generally agrees that there are restrictions on who dies. Military service, like law enforcement, is in many ways a "sin-eater" position: when society screws up, you pay for it.

But you do once again seem to be horribly misusing 'civilized' to mean something like 'polite' or 'peaceful', when that's not really what the word means, it's just connotations people with overly facile misunderstandings of society and human nature have ladled onto it in an attempt to convince themselves 'oh, no, we're much better than that'.

We're not.

I really need to explain the difference between Noir and Tovil-Toba?
Noir isn't universally lauded as a hero for what he did. Tovil-Toba is.

For ***** sake Pieter.

Apologies, my dates were way off, that is what you get when you don't double-check things and trust your brain to handle things responsibly. It was almost 700 years ago, entered in to Gallentean history archives as what happened one person called Sebastienne Po-Lana. And it wasn't a temple, but a Raata shrine.

Which, let's face it, is just silly.

You chop grandpa up and feed him to the pigs.

I dunno if they do but in harsh survival conditions, they should. After all, eating Grandpa yourself is just taboo and nasty, right? But pigs... pigs are one of the few animals that have absolutely no compuction eating dead people. Like, even more predators don't like the way we taste. Pigs though, they don't care. You're food.

And hey, if food's tight, that's just one less meal you need to feed the pigs! (and after all, you need to keep some of the pigs alive so they can make more pigs for when the worst of the winter breaks, right?)

YES! Thank you. You put what I was thinking into words better than I could.