Intergalactic Summit

Apologies, this has now been rectified.

Clearly the recent conflicts between the Federation and the Republic have had inflamed Gallente Ultra-Nationalists. The question is what wider effect has there been, if any, among the mainstream in Minmatar and Gallente populations of both Empires?

An even more pertinent question for this Summit would be what attitudes have become most prevalent among Capsuleers. Baseliner politicians can shake their fists and gnash their teeth, they can command their navies and armies. What happens if we immortals do not share their petty prejudices? I find the notion of any wider scale escalation of conflict between the Republic and Federation completely abhorrent. Many of the campaigns I've taken part in have been fought side by side with TLF forces, not to mention the Matari pilots and crews within GMVA and other FDU aligned forces. I don't imagine we'de sit idly by while petty planet bound politicians flirt with genocidal brinkmanship.

The Amarr would probably have retaliated in any case if Mandate space was violated alone.

You chose to sacrifice a lot to save a few.

Letting aside the consequences on the intergalactic situation, I think that you should pay a visit into the Mandate someday and see what that incursion really did.



With respect sir, I find it less disorienting and aggressive that your excessive fully capitalized words as a way to add some emphasis on them.

Pieter dear, don't tell me you've spent this much time among militants and still haven't learned that "with all due respect" translates roughly to "*edited* fornicate you but...". It's almost funny how dishonest we get while in mixed company, blurting out words of respect and civility while everyone translates them to their intended insults and derogatory remarks.

I think I'd like to try living in a world where honesty was the default for a while. While it'd certainly create problems of its own, I think it'd solve a lot of the problems we have. You know... right before the cluster burned to the ground.

That's actually quite a question, given the example.

It depends on what one would consider to be worthwhile. The Elder Fleet was absolutely decimated; surely over 350,000 people were lost aboard the titans alone. I've often wondered why Matari infrastructure could not cope with the incoming population when they lost so many crew to the now-Empress's weapon. Perhaps it was simply because those that left were military members and largely Thukkers who were not counted in planetside populations, then those that returned were slaves who had more civic educations?

Regardless, the Starkmanir tribe probably resonates differently with me than my brethren, simply because I spend so much time among the Matari, and especially Matari believers. A great many of the Starkmanir still uphold the faith, though they know they should not return to Amarr space. I have cause to speak with many of them. In the end, their fate was a sad one. Now, lamenting largely that they are in a new world that they do not understand, being asked to be a tribe that they no longer are, but for the cause of a Republic they know they owe their lives to.

It's quite a complicated situation. I'm not sure whether to praise the Thukkers for saving them or lambasting the almost staggering losses they endured in doing so and all of the money, time, and lives surely wasted in the endeavor. Was it truly worth spending so much to save so little?

I can't say I think the tribe alone deserves such a grace, but it has made an impression on me. They are largely the reason that I view slavery the way that I do. These people, of all people, who in the majority still hold their faith in the Lord in the face of all reason not to, is the heart-wrenching reason I so cherish my role here. These people are believers in the truest sense of the word, believing in God's great wisdom and Word even when those that taught it to them want them dead and those that saved them call them blasphemers.

Perhaps it wasn't worth saving them for the Matari, save as a piece of propaganda. Surely that serves Shakor's interest foremost. But perhaps it was worth saving them from the Amarrians so that we might learn a lesson from them. They are proof positive that we were holding people who absolutely should have been freed into our society by then. Surely, they had to have been made Amarrian by that point. Instead, they were kept as a curiosity, the last racial remnants of a civilization to one people and expedient labor to others.

Mixed feelings are a strange bag, but though I am not sure whether it was worth saving them in the long term, I think the universe is a better place with them in it. The Thukkers dearly paid for it.

Do you ?



You can think what you will, but it was really asked politely and with respect.

If you have had some troubles with dubious individuals before using it as a veil for anything else, I could see how it might colour your vision.



I am having a hard time seeing what democracy pros and cons have to do with the issue at hand.

As you said earlier, you would have preferred a call for a special meeting of the Inner Circle, which is remarkable. And yet you chose to support the resort to less than admirable methods in the end because no other way was available to you.

How far are you willing to go to fulfill your selfish wishes ? Extraordinary circumstances for extraordinary means ? Like when Ardishapur glassed Arzad Prime ? After all, the end justified the mean to him too. I am sure that you can think of many similar cases throughout History. But I guess that your own little case is "special" ? Like the Starkmanir were "special" ?

Also, in your example, the illegal act you speak of has nothing at all morally justifiable in my view, but to answer nevertheless, I would obey the law of course, or fight for it not to happen within the boundaries of that law. Why would I act differently ? I am not a slave to my primary instincts.

Who said that laws are always enforcing something moral and breaking them would thus be immoral ? I am pretty sure that you are trying to put words in my mouth here.

Also, morality lies in the eye of the beholder. You won't get far debating the morality of laws when you seem to completely miss the funfamentals about laws and why those exist.

In any case the discussion on laws has been brought by Ms Rella. I do not recall having mentioned those in my original message...



Resorting to racial slurs already ? How trite.

Here's the problem in this scenario, to save one people, you kill another.

Note the key word scenario here, the other keyword is "you" (also your, yours and other derivations. This will be used to project the reader into the scenario, not a direct accusation of any action they've undertaken themselves. And yes I find this necessary to do, otherwise the discussion deviates into a pointless bickering over words and meaning.


Right and wrong in this scenario is based on a certain point of view over semantics; ethics and morals went out the window when people started getting killed. You can't claim moral highground when you end up being no better statistically than those you set out to oppose.

You can believe you've done the right thing, but because at that point you've set someone's life at a higher value than someone else and based this on something blameless to the victim, their race, their gender, their religion, their sexual preference, any form of profile discrimination to justify one group of people to be more valuable than another, you can't claim you're morally superior or have taken an ethical solution. You've judged people's worth and right to existence not what they've done but who they are. That's the short end of it, it's not pretty to look at that way, and it may well not be what you intended, but that's the blunt truth of your actions.

You can't claim moral highground while basing your decisions on that choice, regardless of what emotional motivation you've got for doing what you do.

Wonderful. You and the senator will be quite happy, you should vote for him.

I look forward to our eventual war.

Whether or not I vote for him depends on his other policies. A war with the Republic would most likely mean we are on the defense, and judging by the Republic's recent failures when invading other powers, I wouldn't even call it a war. Pest control comes to mind.

Building a massive fleet over the course of several decades and losing it all in one day is beyond embarrassing. It's truly outstanding how after that mess, the Republic still thinks it's a good idea to try attacking significantly more powerful nations.