Intergalactic Summit

*Grabs popcorn and settles in*

Here we go again. I hope I didn't miss the previews....

Goodness I do love hyperbole!

My dear Ms. Kim.

It is an unfortunate reality of conflict that on occasion those who fall to the mercy of their adversaries, are ill-treated.

Sometimes that maltreatment is isolated, sometimes institutional.

Your apprehension is commendable, and your focus on human rights unexpected, one wonders then how much thought or care you give to Federal detainees in the… custody of the State.

I do not condone the alleged mistreatment of captured combatants, Ms. Kim but your clambering rings a bit hollow.

Oh and you didn't mention your hair?

A dubious reference to be sure, this is the second time someone from P.I.E. has stepped on my toes in as many weeks.

I’ll have to ponder that…

Fair enough. I'm on record elsewhere saying that these detention facilities are an affront to every value the Federation esteems, and that the people responsible must be identified and punished. Kim, as has been noted, openly admits to personally executing any Gallente she captures "before they become POWs." As if that's a thing.



Fine. I'll do my little logic lesson using you as the example.



Here's a little exercise taught to every gallente child:

• All men are mortal,


• King Rouvenor is a man,


• Therefore King Rouvenor is mortal.

It is an example of the most basic form of deductive argument. First, we have a Major premise, a general statement. Second, we have the Minor premise, a more specific statement. Finally, from these true statements we have the Conclusion. If the first two statements are true, then this conclusion must be true.

What do we get when we try to apply this structure to Kim's argument?

Basically, we have a series of conclusions with no supporting premises. "Their belief in democracy and freedom makes them cruel, inhumane and greedy racists." Or "The cruelty of the Amarr people is insignificant" when judged by treatment of prisoners.

To have an argument based on logic, Kim would need to say something like this:

• All people who believe in democracy and freedom are cruel, inhumane, and greedy racists.


• The Gallente believe in democracy and freedom.


• Therefore, the Gallente are cruel, inhumane, and greedy racists.

Kim probably believes the major premise here, but all we need to do to disprove it is find one person who believes in democracy and freedom who is not cruel, inhumane or a greedy racist. Multitudes of people throughout New Eden fit this description, I'm sure everyone here other than Kim is willing to admit to having met at least one.

You still haven't extracted all the information I have asked, Mr. Syagrius.

Human rights? Where did I say something about human right. I said gallentes are savage and inhuman monsters, but not a word about any of these right. There is a difference of systematic maltreatment on purpose and maltreatment by practical reasons (for example, cut funding). If you'd investigated these prisons, you'd see how much money they wasted on them... and couldn't find enough money for a bit of food, really?

As for Federal detainees in the State, I am pretty sure they are in a good condition, since our peoples are professionals and not cruel monsters like gallentes.

I even myself had to deal with captured gallentes. Honestly, I prefer to evade this at all cost and I don't accept individual unit surrenders until the Federation whole will surrender. But if I have to deal with gallente prisoners, they are given proper nourishment, proper housing (under guard of course), they aren't disturbed during their imprisonment and of course they are given fair justice. Punishment (often capital) is carried out only if their guilt is proven by tribunal and in the degree prescribed in the code.

Moreover, this all discussion, Mr. Syagrius, isn't exactly about prisoners, but about the way you have referenced their existence.

But do you worship freedom?

Stop being obnoxiously stupid, gallente. I am not adding freedom just "now", we were talking about it earlier.

And playing "my games"?! You popped into the discussion and after failing on it, unable to find any arguments you just keep posting, attacking me instead with crap like I would "ALWAYS move the goal posts".

Learn to admit your defeat and inferiority and stop bothering me with your further meaningless replies. No, really, get out, gallentean, if you can't say anything of value, especially if you resort to this sort of "reply" when I asked you to bring proof to your groundless assumption.

And if you like attacking opponents instead of arguing, I hope you will adore this my reply to you, which you have totally deserved, TINY FROG.

Yeah, you originally equated love of freedom and democracy with cruelty. Now you're insisting that in order to prove you wrong we have to consider chaos part of the deal also. That's adding a condition. I've no doubt that you will keep on adding them as long as I keep pointing out how weak your logic is.

alleged
[uh-lejd, uh-lej-id]

adjective
1.
declared or stated to be as described; asserted:
The alleged murderer could not be located for questioning.
2.
doubtful; suspect; supposed:
The alleged cure-all produced no results when it was tested by reputable doctors.

If I originally equated love of freedom and democracy with cruelty, and you are now complaining I am considering freedom part of the deal?
I mean, Vero, are you on drugs or something? If I had A and B condition and talking about condition A, that's NOT adding a condition. Unless you are heavy on Blue Pills.

If only.