I spoke of his personal experience because he did. That’s all there is to it.
I have to admit, it was quite fun to use footnotes. However…
I intended my post to read as ‘don’t expect an answer so don’t bother’ in order to avoid the thread getting clogged.
I appear to have only achieved what I set out to avoid, for which I apologise.
A bit of unclarity there, Directrix, and I apologize for that. However, as you say: House Cerra’s holding has not come under attack from Tribal forces, and so Commander Kim’s exhortation against us cannot refer to that holding. Diana is, after all, intelligent and honorable. I do not think she would accuse us of attacking innocent civilians without evidence, and so believe she must have been referring to other systems.
That said, you are correct that that is not the correct thread for addressing that issue. Again, my apologies.
Good. The more you can avoid emulating that faithless fool, the better for you.
This may come as a shock to you, but there is a massive difference between pedantry and simply saying ‘this person is making an accusation. They got to choose the words they used, and what accusation they were making. How about we believe they’re not complete morons, and used the words they intended to use, rather than come up with a whole host of denials that all come down to accusing them of being so stupid that they used exactly the wrong terms’.
If, for example, I accuse Harkon of being a “cat burglar”, rather than just ‘a thief’, then I’m indicating a specific type of activity, and a specific method for carrying that activity out: illegal entry, but through stealth and finesse, not brute force. I’m not going to use that term if, for example, he’d come up to me, put a gun to my back, and said ‘gimme your wallet’. If I do, well, I’m dumb.
Now, let’s say Lady Cerra hadn’t just said ‘sleeper agent’, but had gone on to say that the putative agent had arrived at the Holding after Harkon’s statement about ‘unleashing operatives’ in Huola. If I’d gone and taken her to task about how that describes an infiltrator, rather than a sleeper agent, that would be pedantry. Instead, I’m simply taking her at her word, and trusting her and her security forces to know which freaking term they wanted to use.
Her. Not you. Are you a mind-reader? Do you have specific evidence to show that she didn’t mean that word? Or are you just knee-jerking a defense of her because you like her for taking in the refugees? I would think that, as someone interested in their well-being, you’d have an interest in seeing her evidence, in getting hard proof that she didn’t just pick one of them and murder him as a warning to U’K to not even try to get someone into her Holding.
So: Do you? Or are you simply taking her at her word? If it were me, and I felt a responsibiity to those people, I would sure as hell be making damned sure not a single one of them gets shot and used for propaganda without a cubic kilometer of hard evidence.
And for the record? This is what pedantry looks like. Disputing a third-party’s insistence of ‘she totally didn’t mean the thing she actually said’ when she herself has not made any statement to that effect? That isn’t. That’s just calling you an apologist idiot.
As I have already indicated, I consider you an intelligent and honorable woman, and someone whom I do not think would be leveling accusations without evidence. At this time, neither Lady Cerra, nor those speaking on her behalf from LUMEN, have made any claims of Matari involvement.
House Sarum has made such an accusation, but again, has provided no evidence. Other reports have surfaced indicating the attack originates with an Amarr faction. Meanwhile, House Sarum has undertaken illegal slaving operations against foreign nationals living in pre-existing settlements on what was at the time an Amarr-occupied Republic world.
Again, as I indicated above, I consider you an honorable and intelligent person. I do not think you would intentionally stoop to such unfounded and libelous accusations with absolutely no evidence, nor did I believe you would blindly accept the word of war criminals without waiting for the results of the investigation LUMEN leadership has indicated is underway.
If I am wrong about that, then of course, I apologize for my error.
A man was sentenced to death. That’s, basically, necessary and sufficient proof.
And if you believe that was wrong, you should appeal to Lady Cerra’s court. Until then, I’ll consider it as a fact on a basis of being a judical decision.
Besides that Mr. Thorson himself made a public announcement of an operation that could be considered as nothing but primitive terrorism:
So, Else? This might sound foul to you coming from me, but I’d love to see a detailed Republic discussion on “fundamental human rights.”
Those of us in the State, especially, are kind of brought up looking at these words in maybe kind of a similar way to how Republic Matari might be brought up to look at the Amarrian god. In a way, they’re very familiar, so much that it might be hard for me to think about them fairly. I’d love to see a more ambivalent view.
Even if there’s no real conclusion and it’s just sort of your musings, it’d be really neat to see.
It’s not a concept I’ve used much except in communication with foreigners, so I am not sure I can answer this one myself.
The closest concept that I can think of is basic decency, but that is more like any person’s obligation to treat others without causing undue suffering, than any person’s right to be treated that way. Even if the end result is the same, the concept is not.
Hm. If you’re saying it’s duty-based, rather than rights-based (how a person should behave rather than what a person’s entitled to), then that would be maybe similar to how it’s seen in the State and Empire.
Does that seem right?
“Duty” to me implies a loyalty to someone from which it would stem so not quite, but close enough I guess?
But not for the deathglow attacks. Or for any attacks. He was shot for spying. There was no trial. No evidence. Just footage of a man being shot—empty propaganda just like the Black Eagles use.
And yes, Harkon Thorsen made a big splashy statement. That doesn’t mean he did anything. If anything, the apparent fact that the Deathglow was delivered by via a military munition indicates it’s not the actions of people who ‘aren’t equipped for an open war’.
Hmm … ah-- not necessarily?
Like, my sect recognizes four duties as inherent in being human: humility, moderation, curiosity, and compassion. They’re all meant to be taken together; Morgana Tsukiyo, with whom you’ve maybe noticed I don’t get along, exemplifies curiosity but kind of tosses everything else down the disposal chute.
Those aren’t duties I have to anyone in particular, though they’re kind of ingredients in being a decent person. So, in a way, they’re duties to everyone I come in contact with, or maybe just to myself if I want to be a benefit and not a blight (keeping in mind that if I’m a blight, my own life will likely be one of the things blighted; people who spread suffering are often also suffering themselves).
They’re also not absolute; they don’t automatically override all other duties. My duty to so-and-so might require me to shoot such-and-such a person, and my duties as a human being don’t override that duty (though in some extreme cases, they might).
But even if my duty to kill is completely clear, if I want to be a decent person, I should still show compassion: I should make it quick, clean, and painless, if I can.
Does that sound similar?
It seems as if there are differing understandings of the word ‘Duty’.
Words have more than one meaning, causing cultural misunderstandings.
Call Gutter Press !
Well … I suppose my working definition would be: “Something someone is supposed to do.”
The flurry of posts in recent days, about the treatment of surrendered enemy forces, illustrates why capsuleers should generally not be allowed to command ground forces.
Could be just translation ■■■■ up of terminology there.
For me, there are characteristics of a person that are andesh, proper. They are not so much something someone should do or has a duty to do but maybe something akin to “virtue”.
These are somewhat difficult to translate, but the virtue of [translator: mercy, compassion, generosity l also: shelter, protection] is the one that would apply here. It is andesh to not cause undue suffering.
The other three main virtues are [translator: self-reliance, independence, freedom], honor, and power, and these form a circle of sorts: power is nothing if not used to protect, and mercy is nothing if its price is freedom. (And to complete the circle: independence is nothing if not used with honor, and honor is nothing without the power to uphold it.)
It’s just a statement, not trying to be cool or anything. It’s closer to a joke post that supports the decision of the original poster rather than me trying to fluff my own ego. But more importantly: look how many likes it got. HELL YES
I don’t know that there is such a thing as a Republic concept or consensus on that sort of thing. I can tell you (and I’m sure Anna will rage endlessly at me if I say anything she or her uncle disagree with) the analog I grew up with. It may or may not be similar to Elsebeth’s understanding of such things. After all, different Clans.
For us, it’s a matter of mutual commitment and obligation. I’ve spoken before how we see our obligations, and I think even how that stems from our old territories in the north, and only increased in importance once we made the move to a space-based Clan. Life outside of any semi-natural biosphere is, after all, entirely built on interdependence.
Now, a lot of it… I mean, a lot of it… is about our obligations to the Clan as itself, as the whole of it. But within that is also our individual obligations to one another as parts of the Clan, and through that, our obligations as part of the Clan to one another as individuals.
And that’s what it kind of comes down to, for us: individually, we’re not really all that much, but the Clan is made of individuals, so individuals are important, and have value, because without each of us… there is no ‘us’. So people need to be cared for. Looked after. Their needs have to be met. And those needs aren’t just food, shelter, water, and physical health. It’s also emotional and mental health… that’s especially important when you’ve got generations upon generations living in an overgrown steel canister.
A big, big part of that emotional and mental health comes down to treating people with the kind of respect as human beings that you’d want to be treated with. Mistreating people causes problems within the group. It always has, and it always will. Limiting peoples’ agency even a single iota more than is absolutely necessary is in that category. When you tell people ‘you can’t do this’, there has to be a clear, compelling reason. Otherwise, you’re asking for trouble and internal strife.
Satisfaction’s a big chunk of it, too: people need to be able to feel a sense of self-worth, and satisfaction with the efforts they put forth and the recognition they receive. Moreover, they need to be able to determine for themselves what course they’ll pursue to seek that satisfaction. Funneling people into pre-determined roles may work for some, but for many, it simply leads to depression and a simmering discontent. In cultures that funnel everyone into those pre-determined roles, people may never realize what they’re experiencing. It will just seem a general malaise, a sense of listlessness and resigned resentment that they can never quite identify.
Frankly, I’ve seen that a lot in people in and from the Empire. They get irritable and frustrated easily, always just that little bit angry and tense, and never quite knowing why. Even when they’re happy—joyous, even—there’s that nagging sense that someone is about to intrude into their happiness and snatch it all away. That’s not healthy, and it doesn’t serve the collective good.
Maybe for some folks, that’ll feel… shallow, or facile, and it probably is. But I’m trying to convey the broad strokes of concepts that… well, to take a cue from Elsebeth’s book and fall back into our own patois, it’s a sense of [translator: symbiosis, reciprocity, interdependence, communal caregiving]. And I don’t think just saying… well, to bypass the translator, “samhjálmön” would really be helpful to your understanding.