Nor did I claim that. How does this make it any more possible for someone who has no means to get off planet to do so when their lives are in danger?
2 Likes
Leaving smugglers aside, thatâs not the original scope of the question, so 
Itâs not? I recall originally asking the following.
My last question was:
How is my last post not in scope with my original question?
2 Likes
Going from the average mon-capsuleer to someone whoâs being actively hunted down by authority does change the scope of the question. Itâs disingenious at best.
I was responding to this from you.
(emphasis mine)
How is someone whoâs life is threatened, as framed by your original post, and my pointing out that the average non-capsuleer in such a situation may lack the luxury to leave the planet, disingenuous?
The section I had snipped out from my original post explains my position clearly. If youâre not convinced you can expand the quote and see for yourself. I reject your charge of me being disingenuous.
2 Likes
What Iâm saying is if doing A puts you in danger, why not do B?
What youâre asking is how someone can do B if theyâve already done A?
Yes. And? Itâs a valid question and by no means disingenuous.
2 Likes
Racing toward 1,000 replies. Keep it up!
2 Likes
Now thatâs just a silly goal. Weâd need filler posts and nonsense and thoroughly unhelpful commentary! And nobody here would do that.
3 Likes
And I agree with this wholeheartedly, as it reflects what I have been saying prior multiple times before.
But, unfortunately, I cannot agree with this. For me, freedom is not a lie. It is a force that separates all these bonds. Or the condition where these all these bonds are simply absent. It is a world without laws, without families, without society, without loyalty, without friendship, without love. And it is probably the most hellish nightmare that I can think about. This is why I so eagerly fight against freedom worshipping zealots.
Thank you for your words, they are truly profound.
1 Like
I didnât say it was a perfect deterrent.
The Caldari Prime Incident was an extremely limited incident, a lightning raid as it were, that was in no way tenable should the Federation Navy respond in force. But, the will to respond in force was not there, because the Federation politicians knew well that such a response could draw in the Empire as well.
So they chose to de-escalate, by signing a treaty recognising the facts on the ground.
Itâs a different strategy, but one that works, to an extent.
One might even say that CONCORD & the Empire have a good cop/bad cop act going on.
Identification of which is which, is an exercise left to the reader.
1 Like
I strongly disagree. Even if Federation Navy responded in force, the situation wouldnât have changed. Our Navy is the best in the Cluster, and backed up by security forces of all Eight, filthy frogs would have no chance against us even if they threw absolutely everything they had against us in that battle.
We had will to liberate our Homeworld, and for this we did that - gathered everything we had, baring our flanks. It was a gamble, and we won it. Feds are just cowards. Though their fears have the basis: if they did that, they both would lose their fleet to our ships, and their systems would be bare for the Empire to invade.
And I am pretty sure we would still have ships to return to our systems to defend them in case of possible Minmatar attack. The Federation on the other hand⌠would be collapsed.
So the Empire is what keeps the peace, except when a culture thatâs historically not an aggressor just happens to go on the offensive for a specific purpose everyone in the clusterâs been hearing them openly and loudly say theyâre planning for over a century.
But hey, the Empireâs prevented all of those other offensives they werenât planning, right? By the way, the Federation choosing not to escalate doesnât reflect on how well âthe Empire curbs the aggression of the Stateâ. Nor would the Empire have been likely to attempt to intervene, since the treaty they have with the State is at best a mutual defense pact (itâs not, actually, but itâs implied) and the State were the aggressors.
To do so wouldâve meant needing to move forces toward Genesis, even if they used the Niarja pipeline for the majority of their aid. That would have left them open to attack from the Republic.
You see, this whole âbalance of powerâ thing? It actually relies on all parties, not one of them.
2 Likes
Whatâs wrong with eudaimonia?
1 Like
I donât think Mr. Shutaq meant cynics in that way. Cynics more in the vein of not believing in the goodness of humanity. Sadly, he seems to have a bit of that same cynicism.
1 Like
Well ⌠his versionâs not really cynicism, though.
Cynicism can be described as romanticism with a broken heart-- taking that same gauzy veil of light and turning it dark. It still obscures the realities of the world; it just flips the polarity around.
Lord Consort Newelleâs been too thoughtful about what he thinks of people for me to think he suffers much from such a thing. He can be glib; he can be judgmental; but he pays attention to details, and puts a good bit of thought into what he thinks of people and why.
3 Likes
Perhaps youâre correct, Ms. Jenneth. It might just be that Mr. Shutaq was a bit frustrated with some of the comments in this discussion. It is hard though, trying to get all these different people with their varied experiences and opinions to agree on any topic. I donât envy him, that is for sure.
2 Likes
Well ⌠heâs not the only one to get frustrated, of course.
2 Likes
No, certainly not.
1 Like
The Amarr have an irrational terror of anything with âdaimonââor similar spellingsâin it.
3 Likes