I remember this game, the lonely pariah talking in oblique terms about Foundation Day; usually leads to, “How are your family?”, “Where will you be celebrating?”, “Will you find time to see old friends?”– I cannot imagine what you hoped to accomplish, those are questions… well for someone.
1 Like
So much misunderstanding of why I did what I did. But this gives me an idea. I’m going to have to make an extra special post just for Foundation Day that should clear everything up.
I wouldn’t get your hopes up.
I realized the truth about the place I was born and actively chose another while being fully informed about it.
It was a treacherous and painful road, but I feel much better after having made the journey.
2 Likes
There’s only one way to solve this dispute between Amicia and Arsia.
Mud wrestling !
This was already tried between Pieter Tuulinen and Ava Starfire!
The IGS is the only type of mud I’ve any interest in rolling around in, thank you very much.
I thought that was jelly ?
Maria Daphiti. Now that’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time.
2 Likes
It’s been tried since, too, but the IGS got its collective knickers in a twist over the idea of someone mud-wrestling and more or less harrangued the people just looking to make resolving a conflict a little funnier into basically writing the whole place off and leaving.
So, y’know, basically, people suck and should stop being dicks to one another. But it’s the IGS, so we all know they won’t.
1 Like
Didn’t the Brutor Tribe also get involved in that debate ? Or was that a different one ?
I believe so.
Not when it expressly violates the intent of the legislation. Adhering to the letter of the law while violating the intent behind it is, in fact, disrepectful. And part of the intent behind the CEWMP Act was to limit the conflict to space-borne capsuleers and military assets, rather than endangering civilian populations.
Nonsense. One can engage in actual debate, and attempt to make progress, without being emotionally invested in whether or not the other person is receptive. Again, I express myself for my own sake, because I feel I should or need to. But I’ve long-since accepted that I can’t ever force you to actually think critically about what you’re presented with, I can’t ever really get most of you to listen. So there’s no point getting emotionally invested in you… only in whether or not I’m making my point clearly enough that you could understand it, if you were willing to.
Edit: Frankly, anyone who enters into a discussion or debate reliant upon, and invested in, the receptiveness of the opposition… is setting themselves up to become a violent cynic who has given up on discussion as a means of resolving problems. Because the other side is almost always too invested in their own viewpoint to seriously consider the validity of any other. When you find someone who is willing, the first thing you should do is actually listen to what they’re saying.
I promise, it gets results.
1 Like
Asserting a single intent in multilateral legislation, you’re not naive enough for that to be considered good faith.
Claiming I asserted a single intent is dishonest, and beneath you. The initial phrase you quoted spoke of general principles, and was making a generalized statement, not claiming any single intent behind mulitlateral legislation, only that there is intent behind legislation, and that it is possible to violate that intent.
Whose intent? I strongly suspect it opposes that of one party and is quite coherent with that of the other.
I rather suspect that no, none of the parties involved in crafting the CEWMPA legislation were thinking ‘This will totally let us lob anti-matter at fishing villages!’ or anything of the sort. So how about you produce any indications that do support that before you go setting up your windmills to tilt at, hmm?
Obviously they are not the only signatories, but in signing up to that legislation, the two parties involved in Floseswin had intentions that could in all reasonableness be described as opposed; avoiding speculating on the specific negotiating points of those parties, broadly I find it reasonable to consider that the Empire wished a legal avenue to apply military pressure to the Republic and that the Republic wished to restrict that avenue as much as possible.
Expanding the scope of the conflict outside its historical, though it seems not clearly legislated parameters is coherent with application of pressure, although obviously not with the restriction of it.
1 Like
Not necessarily. They had long-term agendas that were opposed, definitely, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have intentions that aligned with one another where the legislation was concerned. For example:
- Keeping active, loyalist capsuleers engaged and at their disposal.
- Keeping those active, engaged, loyalist capsuleers from going off half-cocked in ways that worked against the nation’s greater interests.
- Minimizing collateral damage to each nation’s civilian population and planetary infrastructures.
To think that they must be opposed in their intentions regarding a single act of legislation is as myopic and naive as what you accused me of doing. And we both know you’re smarter than that.
Which of those intentions is it you think was expressly violated in the case of Floseswin IV?
Obviously, #3.