Again, I do not understand why you are so mad at me or why you think I am being a “wounded victim”.
I think what you are trying to tell me is that from your point of view it is hypocritical of me to object to Nauplius’s presence in places when at the same time I call the likes of Harkon and Pol “brother”. Correct?
That would verge on objectivity.
See, the problem is when your message is “STOP COMMITTING WAR CRIMES AGAINST US… and we’ll sigh about ours” isn’t taking a ■■■■■■■ stand. It’s all just a ■■■■■■■ cyclical ‘no u’ argument once the capslock comes off.
I’m not mad, you wanted to ■■■■■■■ know, and I told you. I think you’re being a wounded victim because…
…is all about how angry I’ve got to ■■■■■■■ be with you, and how you’re being bashed and berated. I’m just treating you the way people who make peace with ■■■■■■■ evil ought to be treated, which isn’t ■■■■■■■ nicely, because people like you don’t tend to listen when the ■■■■ collectors come calling. ■■■■, like you actually feel like listening. So let’s be ■■■■■■■ clear…
You get to ■■■■■■■ pick. Is this a waste of your precious ■■■■■■■ time? Is this an area of real concern? Are you at all worried you might be ■■■■■■■ wrong? Are you just worried about saving face? Because you don’t want me to pick for you.
Who is this guy anyway, and why is he so profanely angry at everyone and everything ?
Yes, but since I happen to be in a place where I have time to waste, that’s ok.
Depends on what you mean by “this”. Understanding an outcast or getting him to understand me? Not really. The war? Yes. Something else? Please be more specific.
Constantly, but in the specific case of this discussion, while I might be wrong at least about some things (considering I struggle to understand it, that seems likely), the prospect does not particularly worry me. It makes me curious, if anything.
Sometimes, but here? No, not really. I don’t feel like I am at risk of losing any.
His name is Roman, and he’s not profanely angry at anyone or anything, he’s just profane. And bored.
Hey, ■■■■ you, ■■■■■■■, the point ■■■■■■■ stands.
Always good to feel ■■■■■■■ validated, I guess.
See, the reason I ask, is because these and this…
Kind of says to me that you say a whole lot of ■■■■ you don’t actually mean, because it ■■■■■■■ sounds good. And this part…
I don’t ■■■■■■■ believe you for a second. Mostly because of this…
So what the ■■■■ is it? And you might want to favor short answers so your ■■■■■■■■ doesn’t trip over itself.
well that’s no excuse for being a butte.
Harsher criticism of profanity and apparent anger than of the fetishistic murder of civilians. About what I’ve come to expect of this society.
Do you use an oxygen mask when you’re on your high horse ? Or do you get enough air with your big nose ?
Whatever that was intended to be, it was a poor substitute for wit.
Nauplius doesn’t listen to anyone who tries to steer him away from the kind of thing he gets up to.
I don’t see why anyone would have any more success trying to talk these Ushra’Khan bods out of their nonsense.
They’ve chosen their path. The path that leads to damnation and becoming the Beast.
I have no judgement for people not attempting to talk psychopaths out of their degenerate hobbies. My contempt is rather for those who hide behind inconsistent morality while lending legitimacy to murderers, high-handed and unexplained declarations that Thorson and Macsliebh have no equivalence to Nauplius are as hypocritical as they are partisan.
There is clear equivalence, the differences are body count and which virtues they pervert to justify their bloodlust.
Hosting discussions about ‘what options do the Minmatar capsuleers have in response to Sarum’s declared assault on civilians?’ is not at all the same as ‘how do the Amarr capsuleers interact with a man who has openly engaged in mass murder for years and personally racked up an individual body count in the millions, purchasing slaves who cannot even run away and then sacrificing them in an insane attempt to get his god to kill entire star systems of non-combatants’.
Are you capable of understand the difference between the two, or do I need to hide half of it in little white boxes for you?
As for this nonsense… honestly, this sort of stupidity is why the idiotic idea that capsuleers are immortal should be utterly stomped out. You’re not immortal. You’re disposable, and when you die, you’ll be replaced by another you, like someone replaces the batteries in a child’s toy.
I’d say the appropriate equivalence for Harkon is someone more like Mitara: Neither of them makes any bones about what they are, neither attempts to justify it with paens to morality or propriety. And neither of them ever has. There are no political schemes, no caring about currying favor or trying to position themselves in position to gain influence with some faction or another. They serve a cause, without hesitation or remorse, and will pay whatever the cost that service incurs.
Napkins, on the other hand, is nothing but justifications and claims of morality. It’s not about his cause, he says, it’s about god’s cause, that he alone has the wit and wisdom to know what god’s cause is. And any price to be paid? Well, that’ll get paid by victims. Not by him. And he shouldn’t ever be held responsible.
So… no, there’s not an equivalence.
Look who is talking.
By skipping part of the discussion I did not mean stop it, I meant “fast-forward and continue from where I stated the case are not comparable, which I already did”. If my interpretation of your point of apparent “hypocrisy” was wrong, of course, then that won’t work.
I think I’ve been pretty good all through this discussion to answer questions put to me. As there is one implied here… Arrendis already touched it, but let me still do my part.
Technically, I did not say “have no equivalence”, I said “the cases are not comparable”, which is a weaker claim. The differences:
I don’t care whether he is sane or otherwise, it’s irrelevant to culpability. It is progress though to acknowledge an atrocity as one, despite the excuses and moral ambiguity you attempt to later insert.
I’d question what part of your goal is served by spraying Amarr civilians over a chapel wall? The questions you asked are fundamentally reasonable, but this isn’t a case of collateral damage, validity of target or pressure upon infrastructure, it’s your brother making an abattoir of a chapel for the sake of a depraved and self-aggrandizing snuff film.
Stand by him or don’t, but the idea he’s any more moral than Nauplius is wishful thinking on your part.
Said a gallente?
Bwa-ha-hahaha-ha.
I don’t know any other nation that commits war crimes on a regular basis daily more often than Gallente Federation.
You are the ones making this a question of morality, of some kind of absurd competition in personal virtue where the measure of a person is counted by how much blood they have spilled (or not) and how good their intentions and pure their hearts when murdering, as if the purity of one’s heart is supposed to have the power to excuse or counter the death and suffering one causes.
Not me.
What I am saying I think the cases are not comparable - not that a comparison has a particular outcome.
I guess in a personal virtue sense a madman performing atrocities because he is quite simply insane could be seen as less responsible for his acts than a sane one who performs them because he misjudges what is effective?
I did not concede those actions to be the product of a sane mind, it simply doesn’t matter. Both of them clearly kill because they want to, I doubt effectiveness has been given a thought by either of them in some time.