Off-Topic Thread vol. 2

[Diana_Kim]

@Aria_Jenneth

She’s basically calling you a blockhead, ma’am. Only cheesier.

Coming from that goon, it sounds incredibly hypocritical.

[Arrendis]

@Aldrith_Shutaq

@Arrendis

impotence

Really the last words you could use to describe me or my efforts.

Obviously not. After all, not only did I use it…

It’s not words, it’s only one freakin’ word.

[Aldrith_Shutaq]

Corrected before you could get the shot off.

[Arrendis]

Again, obviously not.

[Diana_Kim]

@Cain_Aloga

Amarr loyal, Amarrian faith-following Minmatar are the same thing as Caldari who are loyal to and support the Federation.

With this thing I disagree. First of all, because to be Caldari you have to be of Caldari State. There is no Caldari bloodline, there is no Caldari race, there is only Caldari State.

Now if you consider Deteis, Civire and Achura, how to decide which side of the line is wrong one?

On one side we have corporations, that enforce strict doctrine, enforcing laws and code of conduct, bringing in ideals of honor, glory and meritocracy.
On the other side we have a corrupt unprofessional government that got their position not for their merit but for making a show to crowds to be elected; where you have freedom of speech and can insult and slander other people without criminal repercussion for your words; a society with amoral indecent behavior on public and in media and thorough hedonism, where top ideals are all-allowance of freedom and individualism, putting petty interest of a person above group.

Now think about that, why would anyone consider anyone being on Federal side not as wrong?

It doesn’t matter what bloodline you’re born into. It matters only what side do you stick to, wrong or proper, and just look at this. There is absolutely nothing proper in the Federation!

And this is why the Federation must be destroyed.

[Arrendis]

Ok. Moving this here.

@Aurora_Amadi

Do you mean to play a game with me, Miss Arrendis…? The apology for the presumption and “belittlement” was encompassed with the apology of ignorance as the former could not have existed without the latter. As for your insults, I’d much rather not spend more time dealing with hair-splitting like the above.

Not at all. Apologizing for your ignorance wasn’t necessary. Ignorance isn’t something to apologize for. Ignorance is inevitable. If you mean to apologize for giving offense, apologize for giving offense. Apologizing for ignorance rather than for giving offense is rather like apologizing for the laws of physics, rather than apologizing for bumping into someone. One of those things was something you could prevent. The other, underlying condition, was not.

@Aurora_Amadi

As for your insults, I’d much rather not spend more time dealing with hair-splitting like the above.

It’s hardly hair-splitting. If I don’t know what offense I’ve given, how can I apologize for it? Should I offer up some kind of lame ‘Whatever it was, I’m sorry’? I’m not going to say that. And I’d like to explain why, because I don’t want you thinking that my refusal is an indication of malice or animus. Just the opposite.

“Whatever it was, I’m sorry” has to be one of the single most offensive and denigrating statements someone can make. It comes in a lot of different subtle variations, but they’re all insulting. An apology is an expression of regret or remorse, and is supposed to indicate an acknowledgment of error and perhaps even a lesson learned. That kind of open-ended nonsense shows there’s nothing learned, no error acknowledged. A lot of people will try to conflate the ‘whatever it was, I’m sorry’ response with sympathy. ‘I’m sorry that this happened to you’. But that’s all that is: that’s sympathy. That’s not an apology, and it’s not intended as one.

The ‘whatever it was’ construction is right up there with ‘if anyone was offended, I’m sorry’. That’s a classic ‘non-apology apology’. It puts the onus on the person feeling offense, not the person giving offense. It essentially asserts that the listener, not the speaker, is the problem.

When you apologize, you should know why. You should know what it is you’re apologizing for. Otherwise, how can you avoid repeating the offense in the future?

[Aurora_Amadi]

Please refrain from tagging me in conversations I have already disengaged.

[Arrendis]

@Elsebeth_Rhiannon

I will probably never understand why Feds feel it is “bashing” if I say that they are Fed, or that if they are not members of the tribe they are, uh, not members of the tribe. Why is it a touchy subject?

I don’t think @Anabella_Rella is necessarily talking about your statement, Else (though I could be wrong). I suspect she more means the things Cain and I were saying. But again: All I’ve said is that the Federation thinks everyone else should do things the Fed way, which they do. Not really ‘bashing’ to say that, any more than it’s ‘bashing’ the State or Republic to say we’d prefer it if outsiders would just not butt into our affairs. (And Anabella’s not an outsider, even if her family’s in the Fed.)

[Elsebeth_Rhiannon]

Alright then.

[Diana_Kim]

@Anna_Stjornauga

Commander;

I’m afraid I have to point out the obvious flaw in your challenge: If Bataav considers you to be dishonorable and dishonest, then there is no dishonor for him to refuse your challenge, just as there would be no dishonor in you ignoring a challenge put forth by someone you consider to have no honor.

Is there some other way you could engage with him that doesn’t depend on him believing you to be honorable?

There is no flaw, the point of the challenge is to prove actual honor. It shows that I do willing to risk to prove it. If he refuses - it means he isn’t willing to risk it and thus doesn’t have one.

If I will call someone dishonorable, I will always be ready to face them and take responsibility for my words, if they will consider themselves honorable and will challenge me for that. If they won’t challenge me for that, it means they’re really dishonorable and I was simply right in my estimation.

There are three main components to honor: Loyalty, Courage and Honesty. If he doesn’t have Courage to answer for his deeds and words, then he surely can’t be considered as honorable.

[Anna_Stjornauga]

@Diana_Kim

There are three main components to honor: Loyalty, Courage and Honesty. If he doesn’t have Courage to answer for his deeds and words, then he surely can’t be considered as honorable.

And if he considers you disloyal and dishonest, then your challenge is as nothing but a wail upon the wind to him. After all, if someone is dishonest, how can they be trusted to uphold their part? A challenge from the dishonorable shows nothing, save that they will try to twist and mock even the basic standards of honor. One who has no honor has no standing to call upon others to prove theirs.

[Diana_Kim]

@Anna_Stjornauga

And if he considers you disloyal and dishonest, then your challenge is as nothing but a wail upon the wind to him. After all, if someone is dishonest, how can they be trusted to uphold their part? A challenge from the dishonorable shows nothing, save that they will try to twist and mock even the basic standards of honor. One who has no honor has no standing to call upon others to prove theirs.

I did met a lot of dishonorable persons mocking the concept. Calling to fight on words, calling to a camped system, etc. A certain one “genius” even challenged to drop “bars” and some beef, or something like that. But it’s not really bars and beef, it was about making a tasteless screaming lyrics to rhythm - quite primitive and offensive to real songwriters activity.

But you see, without challenging them you wouldn’t know they just want to mock instead of acting honorably.

There is a good saying, you can truly understand someone’s heart by crossing swords with them or bumping fists. Or you can see how they dishonorably wriggle out, showing their cowardice or picking not real combat “weapon” type.

And you’re right. One who has no honor has no standing to call upon others to prove theirs. When you call someone to prove theirs it means you are going to risk to prove your honor in reply as well and stand with weapon to protect your honor. Those without honor would never challenge you in the first place, because it’s empty sound for them.

As for calling people disloyal and dishonest, accusations on that in public is in most cases are just slanders, or course there could be proofs to that. You could be prosecuted for this as for a criminal offense.

I myself when blame someone in that make sure I always have factual proofs on my hands (as evidences in comparison to my opinions). And I would never give anyone a factual reason to call me disloyal or dishonest.

[Samira_Kernher]

Having a separate set of rules for or otherwise conveniently excluding those who have no honor from your own principles demonstrates cowardice. It’s a loophole one takes to shirk their responsibilities. “Ah that person is without honor, so I’m not obliged to treat them honorably!”

One’s dedication to honor and principle demands to be upheld at all times, not merely with those who also follow it.

[Diana_Kim]

And there is a reason challenging dishonorable people: even if they “hotdrop” you or refuse the fight - you will have a factual evidence of their dishonor and cowardice, giving you ability to call them that without fear of being sentenced by a court to slanders, since you will have that evidence. Courts always give preference to real evidences than words of people against each others. Besides, you can always call them like that - dishonorable people like that would never challenge you or accuse you in front of a jury, take for example Makoto Priano, you can freely call he dishonorable and coward.

Speaking about accepting duels from dishonorable people and them rigging that, yes, that happened to me a lot as well. I usually don’t trust gallente, you probably know it well, but I can’t refuse challenge of honor. One guy wanted to fight on fists, but he rigged arena (of his choosing) with sonic blast cannons. After I tried to disable them, I offered him to fight in a different place, but he simply refused. Xadiran was his name.

[Anna_Stjornauga]

@Diana_Kim

One who has no honor has no standing to call upon others to prove theirs. Those without honor would never challenge you in the first place, because it’s empty sound for them.

I fear you do not understand them, Commander. They will do so, and they will laugh at you for taking the challenge seriously. All you do in that situation is elevate them, and demonstrate that they can manipulate you

@Samira_Kernher

It’s a loophole one takes to shirk their responsibilities.

It is not. A master swordsman commits a murder. When modern police, trained primarily with modern sidearms or hand-to-hand techniques, come to arrest him, he challenges them to individual duels, offering to surrender without further killings if one of them defeats him, sword to sword. Are they dishonorable for ignoring that challenge and simply tasering the criminal?

Those who have discarded their honor should receive none. They are filth. You do not duel filth, you simply wash it away.

[Samira_Kernher]

@Anna_Stjornauga

It is not. A master swordsman commits a murder. When modern police, trained primarily with modern sidearms or hand-to-hand techniques, come to arrest him, he challenges them to individual duels, offering to surrender without further killings if one of them defeats him, sword to sword. Are they dishonorable for ignoring that challenge and simply tasering the criminal?

Only if their honor demanded them to A) accept duels at all (not every culture believes in the idea of duels), B) accept all duels offered (many cultures that do have duels, have specific rules about what counts as a legitimate and illegitimate challenge), and C) was not over-ridden by higher responsibilities that take precedence, such as their commitments as police officers (there will always be conflicts in oaths, and when those conflicts arise, we must determine which oath is the more important).

@Anna_Stjornauga

Those who have discarded their honor should receive none. They are filth. You do not duel filth, you simply wash it away.

It has nothing to do with their honor. It’s about yours. It’s about principle. An honorable person acts honorable at all times, not just when they feel like it, when it benefits them.

Anyone who tries to rationalize setting aside their honor proves only that they are a schemer, someone you can only trust to look for whatever means available to them to deprive you of the rights their system of honor would bestow on you. For them, honor is a shield and nothing more, something there to protect them from their enemies, and an obstacle needing to be disarmed from their foes. It’s dishonest.

[Anna_Stjornauga]

@Samira_Kernher

C) was not over-ridden by higher responsibilities that take precedence, such as their commitments as police officers

I would say that as guardians of public order and representatives of the Law to the populace, to behave in an honorable manner is part of their commitment as police officers.

@Samira_Kernher

Anyone who tries to rationalize setting aside their honor proves only that they are a schemer, someone you can only trust to look for whatever means available to them to deprive you of the rights their system of honor would bestow on you.

There is no rationalization in this. No scheming. Those who have shown themselves to be dishonorable deserve none. To accord it to them is to delay the performance of other duties, and allowing the dishonorable to impair or impede the performance of honorable duties is not honorable. It is self-indulgent.

[Samira_Kernher]

@Anna_Stjornauga

I would say that as guardians of public order and representatives of the Law to the populace, to behave in an honorable manner is part of their commitment as police officers.

And in a society where duels are common I would expect that police would have specific regulations about dueling, because it’d be bound to come up. For example, even if a criminal has a right to trial by combat, they are likely expected to challenge their accuser or a specified representative of the state, rather than any random cop sent to detain them. In fact, challenging a law enforcement officer who has legal cause to detain you might itself be seen as a dishonorable act.

Duels, when they exist, are formalized things. In Amarr, the manner in which duels are permitted and occur are defined in noble laws.

@Anna_Stjornauga

Those who have shown themselves to be dishonorable deserve none.

I’ll repeat myself. It has nothing to do with their honor. It is about yours, and what you will have to live with if you break it in the name of expediency and convenience.

[Charles_Cambridge_Schmidt]

Being able to go, “well, he was dishonorable, so I’m fine to settle this however I want!” is just asking for every single person who doesn’t like other people to go, “it’s okay I butchered this guy and his family – they were dishonorable, it’s fine, lol”

[Samira_Kernher]

@Charles_Cambridge_Schmidt

“it’s okay I butchered this guy and his family – they were dishonorable, it’s fine, lol”

Also known as: the Minmatar government purges.