It’s ok. I won’t hold the ‘disservice’ against you.
I prayed God grant you further clarity; in his blessed and infinite wisdom he has granted honesty instead.
Your first instinct when approaching an avowed enemy of the Throne, Holy Amarr, and the Imperial Rite itself; is good faith cooperation— and as if that were not enough, you would prefer it not be necessary to oppose ‘she and hers’ too vehemently, is that to say that you would prefer they cease their many and varied crimes against Amarr? Or that others provide vehemence in your place?
Whatever the answer, you are an excellent representative of your organisation, Amicia Cora
And you of yours, My Lady.
By all means prevaricate when asked the simplest of questions, it serves only to explicate the chasm between what you are and what you proclaim.
Why should she even accept your question as valid? Rather than ask an open-ended question that allows her to tell you what she meant, you’ve given her a binary choice, A or B, with no room for anything else, while simultaneously telling her that regardless of which of your answers she chooses, you’ll find it inadequate.
It’s an insulting and dishonest method of discussion or argument, and the fact that choosing to ignore the Magician’s Choice you offer results in the exact same conclusion only illustrates your duplicitous and deceitful tactic.
Given that SFRIMs explicit recruitment message is that “SFRIM offers a home to those Faithful who feel a calling toward Reclamation through the gentler arts of diplomacy and outreach,” anyone performing surprise when their members follow the specific outreach pattern based in the ideals of the Pax Amarria that the corporation was founded to do is playing silly games.
But silly games are also no surprise. That the warzone pirates are capricious self-absorbed servants of Molok is not news to anyone who has paid any attention.
Odd way to spell Catiz I there.
The lack of seriousness is understandable, but it for the benefit of the less informed it is worth clarifying that Pax Amarria was based not upon the capitulation its staunchest Empyrean advocates demonstrate, but upon the premise that Holy Amarr is best served by a measured, realistic, and yes peaceful approach to international relations.
Anyone who asserts the subordination of Khimi Harar to Electus Matari to be in accordance with the Pax Amarria is a liar or an imbecile– I do not believe your former Chapter Master to be a liar.
LUMEN being subordinate to EM never happened.
But the groups you so hate LUMEN for flying alongside saved Amarr systems and millions of Amarr lives in the Triglavian Invasion, which seems to me to be exactly the point of continued diplomatic outreach.
Edit: This rehashes old, exhausted, ground though. Your words illustrate the same vile deceits designed to turn the faithful against one another that have been your hallmark for years.
Wow. I really have been out of the loop. We can boss Lumen around now? @Lunarisse_Aspenstar I have a list of things I need done.
They’re especially likely to acquiesce to items that involve engaging the Crusade, might consider starting there.
I would suggest that we all stop responding to comments being made in bad faith. I did the thread a disservice myself by replying in one instance, but ultimately all responding really achieves is empowering certain individuals to be able to derail conversations at will and continue their long-term strategy of trying to whittle down the motivation of the entities they target to participate in public discourse.
Abusers thrive on attention. Block and move on.
I am pleased that you did not attempt to pose your response as an answer, and would reiterate that you have never articulated clearly why you lament the necessity to oppose the enemies of Amarr.
Here’s my answer: No.
There is a conception, in discourse, known as ‘loaded questions’, Lady Yassavi. I’m sure you’re quite familiar. Arrendis has a habit of using them, and more and more of late… so too does it seem you.
Granted, I speak as an outside observer in this.
This is rather a loaded topic; I am asking someone who explicitly stated a preference not to oppose a very persistent enemy of the faith and empire they purport to serve.
I do not see an obvious way to unload that question, and were I to succeed, it would be illusory.
Nah, she always did.
And why should she, since you’ve demonstrated that whatever answer she gives, you’ll find a way to twist it into the answer you want to rant against?
Well, you start off by not pre-determining your conclusions about her answer. You just ask ‘why do you feel that way? What do you think would be a preferable course of events?’ Then you actually listen to the response, evaluate it on its own merits, preferably with a real effort made to read it as intended, rather than as your biases would make it out to be. If you see something you think is damning, ask yourself ‘is that how she meant it? Would this person really say what I think they’re thinking?’
Hell, ask for further clarification. Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of the ‘you know what I meant’ nonsense, but, y’know, make the effort to give a fair hearing.
This is probably the most self-damning thing I’ve seen said on these boards in a long time.
But… they’re not in Branch.
I would suspect the reason why you’ve never heard a Federation Citizen explain why Intaki has the right to secession could very well be explained by that it has never come up in conversation with any that you have encountered, or that you have never asked them.
It is possible that the average Federation Citizen may not be aware of the Intaki Secessionist movement, considering that they have their own concerns and politics at the forefront of their mind within the confines of their member state, likely unaware of what goes on outside of it, or their District. Strewth, many are not even aware that a Federated Union even exists, depending on the area where they live, until the time comes to elect their Senatorial representative or Presidential Candidate.
Of course, when we speak of Intaki, are we referring to the Intaki Solar System, the District, the Intaki Homeworld or those that identify as Intaki or having Intaki ancestry, numbering almost a quarter of the Federal population? Intaki could mean any of those and more, it isn’t a word that is defined by one meaning when the topic of secessionism or independence arises on these forums or in political discourse.
For simplicities sake, and the Federation is anything but simple when delving into it’s intricacies, I shall presume that you are referring to the Intaki Liberation Front’s stated goal of the independence of the Intaki system. The honest answer is, there is not anything preventing a member state from declaring independence from the Federation in theory or in practice. The Federation is an interstellar alliance based in part on the principle of membership and acceptance by mutual consent, not one of conquest or subjugation. I am not aware of any examples of legitimate separation from the Federation (beyond the obvious example, although the legitimacy of it is questionable depending on whom you ask).
As much of an idealist that I am in that I believe that those member states in the Federation have come to adopt the ideals that it espouses out of righteousness, I accept that there is a very realist argument to accepting the Federation’s laws when signing the Charter and agreeing to be bound by the Constitution and Federal Law. One of them is that it is an insurance guarantee of the member state’s sovereignty, as the Federation is bound by contract to render aid and assistance should it be attacked. An attack on one truly is an attack on all, regardless of whether it is the richest core member state or a bootstrap colony on the fringes of Federal space. The economic benefits, development opportunities, freedom of movement, mutual co-operation and the defence of each member state’s way of life and culture; all make membership attractive.
The real question to be asked is: what does a signatory gain by withdrawing from the Union? Sovereignty or ‘regaining control’ over one’s own affairs sounds like an attractive buzzphrase to be used, but the end result of withdrawal would more often that not likely to be detrimental more than beneficial. And quite frankly? The Federation does not nearly have much in the way of direct rule over each member state, contrary to what you may think. Aside from abiding by what obligations they have to as part of the Federation (which could be minimal, if opt-out clauses come into play which many Intaki member states have taken advantage of), it’s presence is barely if at all noticeable.
Except, you know, the Federation Navy.
That’s really not relevant to the legality of doing so, is it? It’s like claiming whether or not I’m better off not cutting off my own foot is relevant to the question of ‘is it legal?’ Either it is, or it isn’t.
Yes, but the bigger question is: does me agreeing to X mean that my great-great-great grandchildren should be forced to be subject to that agreement? Can you really claim to espouse liberty if me agreeing to be bound by something puts shackles on my descendants in perpetuity?