These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

160,800 slaves murdered

Author
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#61 - 2012-06-26 12:46:12 UTC
They're purchased to shoot people, David. We use those implants to help us shoot people.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn

David Toviyah
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2012-06-26 12:57:13 UTC  |  Edited by: David Toviyah
You do? I use mine to increase the rate at which I master new skills and gain knowledge . Sheesh, you people will misuse everything to further your putrid cause, won’t you? Now I wonder what mischief you vile bunch cause with the help of something as innocent as a doll.

Edit: You fill them with drugs?!?! NOOOOOOOOO! YOU SICK FUCKS!
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#63 - 2012-06-26 12:58:46 UTC
You are free to believe whatever helps you sleep soundly.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn

Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#64 - 2012-06-26 13:24:16 UTC
Toviyah,

Before you go badgering you own conscience, I would urge you to consider a few things.

First, violence and conflict are not always inherently evil nor is the death of someone always an unspeakable atrocity. Human life is something not to be trivialized or wasted and it possesses a value that should not be measured, but there are circumstances under which the taking of a life is an acceptable, if unfortunate, necessity.

Second, while you provide implants that may be used to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of capsuleers who would commit "unspeakable atrocities" do not be fooled into thinking you are complicit to those behaviors. A swordsmith is responsible for the making a sword, not for how the sword is used. The sword may be used to defend life or take it, to end conflict or to cause it. The one whom wields the sword bears the weight of responsibility for its use, not the one who made it. Anyone who argues otherwise is seeking to justify themselves through associated guilt.

~Malcolm Khross

Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#65 - 2012-06-26 13:27:17 UTC
I agree entirely with that line of logic; however, many seem to disagree with it. Were it a faultless line of logic, then there would be no immorality or criminality involved with the manufacture of any number of things that our legal systems and popular morality tell us are wrong.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn

David Toviyah
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2012-06-26 13:33:01 UTC
Malcolm Khross wrote:
First, violence and conflict are not always inherently evil nor is the death of someone always an unspeakable atrocity. Human life is something not to be trivialized or wasted and it possesses a value that should not be measured, but there are circumstances under which the taking of a life is an acceptable, if unfortunate, necessity.
See, here I disagree with you. Under no circumstances are we to take human lives if the cycle of violence is ever to stop. Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus, if you will. We capsuleers have it even easier than most people. We do not even have to kill in self-defense in order to save our lives. As such, a murdering capsuleer is even more unacceptable than any other one.

Malcolm Khross wrote:
[D]o not be fooled into thinking you are complicit to those behaviors.
Don’t worry, I won’t be.
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#67 - 2012-06-26 13:37:02 UTC
I suppose I am lucky that very few share your sentiment.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn

David Toviyah
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2012-06-26 13:38:10 UTC
Indeed you are or else you wouldn’t be able to roam the skies on your sanguinary path right now.
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#69 - 2012-06-26 13:42:58 UTC
More to the point, I wouldn't have nearly as much space money.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn

David Toviyah
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2012-06-26 13:46:57 UTC
Oh, the humanity!
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#71 - 2012-06-26 13:48:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcolm Khross
"What is land but a force of opposition against the strength and power of the rushing Waters? What are Mountains but walls of resistance against the power of the Winds?"

We will continue to disagree because those with the strength and power to do harm that also possess the malice and will to do so will forever seek to subjugate or oppress others and if they are not resisted by greater strength and power with a will to oppose then they will be left to inflict harm and oppress without resistance.

The simple matter is that ideally yes, it would be wonderful if everyone could lay down arms and never engage in violence again, but it is an unrealistic goal without removing the capacity for violence from humanity (which is an idea that Nation espouses). As long as there are those who seek to deal harm and oppress others, there will need to be those that seek to oppose them. Pacifism is noble, but it is a path that relies on the presence of other, equally noble, paths.

As for the term "murder," that you would consider anyone who takes a life as a murderer is unfortunate. There is a distinct difference between one who murders and one who kills.

EDIT: Take for instance the original topic of this thread. Violence would be necessary to have defended the 160,800 lives aboard the victim's ship. A pacifist would have simply watched as the ship and all aboard it were slain. So is the one who takes up the fight to resist those seeking to inflict harm in the wrong for doing so?

~Malcolm Khross

David Toviyah
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2012-06-26 14:04:36 UTC  |  Edited by: David Toviyah
Malcolm Khross wrote:
As for the term "murder," that you would consider anyone who takes a life as a murderer is unfortunate. There is a distinct difference between one who murders and one who kills.
Indeed. Someone who kills did so without the intent of doing so. Someone who murders either accepted the risk of killing a person or flat-out intended to do so.

Malcolm Khross wrote:
We will continue to disagree because those with the strength and power to do harm that also possess the malice and will to do so will forever seek to subjugate or oppress others and if they are not resisted by greater strength and power with a will to oppose then they will be left to inflict harm and oppress without resistance.

The simple matter is that ideally yes, it would be wonderful if everyone could lay down arms and never engage in violence again, but it is an unrealistic goal without removing the capacity for violence from humanity (which is an idea that Nation espouses). As long as there are those who seek to deal harm and oppress others, there will need to be those that seek to oppose them.
I fully agree with you up until this point. Yes, violence will likely never be entirely banished but the least we can do is to keep it to the spontaneous “crimes of passion”. And yes, it takes indeed an equally strong-willed resistance to oppose the forces you described. In fact I almost prefer courageous people who are willing to use violence to cowards who will stand idle. Make no mistake, my pacifism is not one of indifference and passivity. But this resistance does not actually need to employ the same methods as said forces in order to combat them. It is here where you are mistaken:
Malcolm Khross wrote:
EDIT: Take for instance the original topic of this thread. Violence would be necessary to have defended the 160,800 lives aboard the victim's ship. A pacifist would have simply watched as the ship and all aboard it were slain. So is the one who takes up the fight to resist those seeking to inflict harm in the wrong for doing so?
If he makes use of the same despicable tools then he certainly is. Take the incident at hand. Would not an armada of ships fitted with warp scramblers, webifiers and the like have sufficed? Surely murdering them is not the only way of stopping their misdeeds that you can envision. In fact, seeing as they are capsuleers capturing them alive appears to be the vastly superior way of rendering them harmless.
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#73 - 2012-06-26 14:13:02 UTC
David Toviyah wrote:
If he makes use of the same despicable tools then he certainly is. Take the incident at hand. Would not an armada of ships fitted with warp scramblers, webifiers and the like have sufficed? Surely murdering them is not the only way of stopping their misdeeds that you can envision. In fact, seeing as they are capsuleers capturing them alive appears to be the vastly superior way of rendering them harmless.


How, exactly, would warp scramblers and webs have stopped them from opening fire and also locking down the victim's ship? You'd need to nullify the gun fire as well. And, since every ship would then be locked into stand still (everyone unable to warp, unable to move and unable to fire), you'd need to maintain this defense indefinitely.

Not to mention you'd have to account for any other opportunistic pirate to happen along that would engage any one of the vessels, or the aggressors requesting additional forces and the stand off would continue to escalate until the pacifiers lose the ability to pacify. At this point violence would ensue and even more lives would be lost, because the pacifying force would be overwhelmed and crushed.

You could argue about the use of ECM or other forms of electronic warfare to try and pacify the attacking vessels but the situation remains largely the same, especially since there are weapon modules and forms of countering ECM that would nullify your passive resistance.

Yours is an ideal, and a noble one, but it is not always realistic or possible and there is no less honor or nobility in an armed defense.

~Malcolm Khross

David Toviyah
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2012-06-26 14:26:29 UTC  |  Edited by: David Toviyah
Malcolm Khross wrote:
How, exactly, would warp scramblers and webs have stopped them from opening fire and also locking down the victim's ship? You'd need to nullify the gun fire as well. And, since every ship would then be locked into stand still (everyone unable to warp, unable to move and unable to fire), you'd need to maintain this defense indefinitely.
The “and the like” obviously covered targeting disruptors and such. And nay, you would not have had to maintain it indefinitely as one could have employed drones capable of breaching the hull and filling the interior with sleeping gas or other incapacitating agents. Self-righteous murderers tend to overlook other methods than violence. Don’t be one of these lazy people and be a bit more creative when it comes to possible solutions. I never said that pacifism is the easier route. But I am sure that you too will be able to come up with non-violent approaches in time if you just try.
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#75 - 2012-06-26 14:26:51 UTC
David Toviyah wrote:
Malcolm Khross wrote:
As for the term "murder," that you would consider anyone who takes a life as a murderer is unfortunate. There is a distinct difference between one who murders and one who kills.
Indeed. Someone who kills did so without the intent of doing so. Someone who murders either accepted the risk of killing a person or flat-out intended to do so.

Are soldiers, policemen, and doctors all murderers in your eyes? All of those professions include a lot of killing.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn

David Toviyah
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2012-06-26 14:28:04 UTC
Lyris Nairn wrote:
Are soldiers, policemen, and doctors all murderers in your eyes? All of those professions include a lot of killing.
Soldiers and policemen, yes. As for doctors ... I don’t know what you are getting at with this.
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#77 - 2012-06-26 14:37:09 UTC
David Toviyah wrote:
Lyris Nairn wrote:
Are soldiers, policemen, and doctors all murderers in your eyes? All of those professions include a lot of killing.
Soldiers and policemen, yes. As for doctors ... I don’t know what you are getting at with this.

Anytime a doctor puts a patient under anesthetic for surgery, he does so with the full knowledge that he is taking the risk of killing a person either through the anesthetic itself, complications during the surgery, or an infection secondary to the surgery. Any time he prescribes medication or offers any other sort of therapy to his patient, the doctor does so with the full knowledge that he may do more harm than good. The medical profession is almost universally revered because it has good intentions, but you do not seem concerned with intentions inasmuch as you are concerned with a single possible result out of many, that being that the person you label as a murderer meets that definition merely by having "accepted the risk of killing a person". Every doctor makes this decision every day, and if you wish to stand firm to your belief and label all doctors as murderers then I will applaud you for having the wherewithal at least to remain internally consistent with your aberrant views.

I will in either case continue to mock you for so long as this thread entertains me.

P.S.—Thank you so much for pumping my thread in Jita Park!

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn

Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#78 - 2012-06-26 15:18:52 UTC
David Toviyah wrote:
The “and the like” obviously covered targeting disruptors and such. And nay, you would not have had to maintain it indefinitely as one could have employed drones capable of breaching the hull and filling the interior with sleeping gas or other incapacitating agents. Self-righteous murderers tend to overlook other methods than violence. Don’t be one of these lazy people and be a bit more creative when it comes to possible solutions. I never said that pacifism is the easier route. But I am sure that you too will be able to come up with non-violent approaches in time if you just try.


You sacrificed all respect and merit you held when you said that policemen and soldiers are all murderers. Your decision to incite hostile responses through insult and derogatory comments regarding the Amarr Empire and its leadership is counter to your proclamation for passivity as well.

You may not condone physical violence, but you practice verbal assault and instigation. You are not a pacifist, you are only self-righteous.

~Malcolm Khross

Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#79 - 2012-06-26 15:58:49 UTC
Malcolm Khross wrote:
David Toviyah wrote:
The “and the like” obviously covered targeting disruptors and such. And nay, you would not have had to maintain it indefinitely as one could have employed drones capable of breaching the hull and filling the interior with sleeping gas or other incapacitating agents. Self-righteous murderers tend to overlook other methods than violence. Don’t be one of these lazy people and be a bit more creative when it comes to possible solutions. I never said that pacifism is the easier route. But I am sure that you too will be able to come up with non-violent approaches in time if you just try.


You sacrificed all respect and merit you held when you said that policemen and soldiers are all murderers. Your decision to incite hostile responses through insult and derogatory comments regarding the Amarr Empire and its leadership is counter to your proclamation for passivity as well.

You may not condone physical violence, but you practice verbal assault and instigation. You are not a pacifist, you are only self-righteous.

I agree with these words.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn

Edaine Numenor
Numenor Benevolent Holdings
#80 - 2012-06-26 16:10:05 UTC
I am not a pacifist, but I have spent a good deal of time working with a group of pacifists and have come to respect their consistency. I also do not know this David Toviyah and am in no place to judge his motives. However, I will give just a few observations from my work with other pacifists that can perhaps form a buffer of mediation here.

A pacifist may use words that provoke not necessarily for that purpose, but because the pacifist position by nature tends to elicit defense from those that use violence. I have felt a bit defensive from time to time, when my own careless use of violence has been confronted. In fact, being around pacifists has caused me to look at my own use of violent tools more carefully than ever before. When a pacifist uses words effectively, those words focus on the value of every life destroyed by violence. This is painful to think about.

I use weapons to defend the lives of my ship crews. I have killed the crews of other ships to save my crews. I believe that the value of what we were trying to accomplish justified lethal defense of my crews. But I have not always been this thoughtful about my use of violence. It took the stinging confrontation of a pacifist to get me thinking more self-critically.

The burden of justification should fall on us who use lethal force and take the lives of others in our work. If I have to endure a little provocation from the pacifist voice, that is OK with me. Do I agree with statements that cast the policeman and the soldier as murderers? No! The pacifists I know, do not feel this way. However, I have come to agree that most of us are way to ready to use violence just because we can.

Perhaps over time, Mr. Toviyah will learn to measure his words more carefully without making them too soft. More important will be if he can remain consistent to the very hard and disciplined life of a capsuleer pacifist. I know of few who can do it.

Finally, back to the subject of the original post. 160,800 lives were violently discarded. Soldiers, Warriors, Enforcers of the Law, Pacifists and non-Pacifists, anyone of honor needs to remove one's hat and stand in silence at the loss of these lives. Let us us agree on that at least.

Liberating slaves wherever, whenever, and however I can.