# The nature and end of Pax Amarria

**URL:** <https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930>\
**Category:** Intergalactic Summit\
**Created:** [December 11, 2019, 9:13pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930 "2019-12-11T21:13:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aria\_Jenneth](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/aria_jenneth/32/469792_2.png) [@Aria\_Jenneth](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Aria_Jenneth)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 5:11pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/81 "2019-12-13T17:11:49Z")

</div>

Okay. I guess it’s natural you’d find that upsetting. So, sorry.

It’s true, though.

Also, I think the “nuh-uh” you perceive is more on point than you’re giving it credit for, because your point is weaker than you think.

> [@Arrendis](#):
>
> Passive opposition is not opposition.

As an example, the very fact of a dead body can cause quite a lot of trouble for attempts to hide it: it’s heavy, it’s bulky, it’s awkward, and if there are holes in it it’s likely to be bleeding all over. Also, if left in place it’ll eventually summon interest by starting to smell. It’s completely passive, literally dead weight, but for the purpose of trying to conceal it and/or the circumstances of its death, it’s nothing but trouble, so a murder victim might easily be the agent of their own vengeance.

The same goes, to a lesser degree, for sacks of mortar, fertilizer, etc. With a little preparation this stuff can of course be worked around and routinely is (hopefully unlike murder, as a rule), but it’s not like a _cooperative_ sack of mortar wouldn’t be a welcome change.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 5:22pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/82 "2019-12-13T17:22:26Z")

</div>

And yet, those things are not _opposition_. They are impediments, yes, but they are not opposition. Opposition requires intent. None of those items, including the dead body, has intent. Your analogy is, I’m afraid, fundamentally flawed.

And, for the record, the dead body starting to smell is _not_ passive, it’s the result of active efforts to break down and feed on the body by microbes.

Also for the record: I said _insulting_, not _upsetting_. It is possible to be offended without being particularly unsettled or upset, especially when it’s something you’ve gotten used to, from specific people.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aria\_Jenneth](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/aria_jenneth/32/469792_2.png) [@Aria\_Jenneth](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Aria_Jenneth)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 5:31pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/83 "2019-12-13T17:31:44Z")

</div>

“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

Opposite. Opposing. That which opposes. Opposition. I am pushing down on the deck. The deck is pushing back on me, opposing and preventing my passage towards the local source of artificial gravity. One attempting to plough headfirst through a bulkhead may encounter stiff opposition.

(Language is fun, no?)

Also, are you really attributing something as complicated as intent to bacteria?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nicoletta_mithra/32/378065_2.png) [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nicoletta_Mithra)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 5:51pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/84 "2019-12-13T17:51:37Z")

</div>

> [@Arrendis](#):
>
> Opposition requires intent.

This, really, I agree with _if_ we are talking about ‘to oppose’ and ‘to support’ as actions (see my argument above). If opposition requires intent, though, it’s following that support requires intent. You’re ascribing support to people, though, who have no such intent whatsover.

It shows how you’re measuring with two sticks, taking out whichever advances your goals.

And if that’s not enough, you just imply that ‘support’ and ‘oppose’ are two pairs of an exclusive set: If one doesn’t oppose, so you claim, one does support. And implicity, if one is not supporting, then one is opposing.

In truth, though, it’s like this:  
“If you are supporting x, you are necessarily not opposing x.  
If you are not supporting x, you are not necessarily opposing x.”  
and the same is true inversely:  
“If you are opposing x, you are necessarily not supporting x.  
If you are not opposing x, you are not necessarily supporting x.”

Put another way: ‘Opposing’ implies ‘not supporting’. But ‘not opposing’ does not imply ‘supporting’.

That’s because ‘support’ and ‘oppose’ are opposites but not negations of one another. They are antipodals: They are denoting opposite directions and/or extremes on an axis of help/hindrance which denotes a continuum. And a continuum always allows for a neutral position (not supporting _and_ not opposing).

It’s simple logic, analogous to the basic logical square.

> [@Aria\_Jenneth](#):
>
> There are differences, but, you’re very nearly in a mirror match.

I actually agree: _If_ Ms. Arrendis cares to give actual arguments and doesn’t decry someone because they gave the wrong date or month or something like that. And unfortunately, she does that a lot.

Being pedantic is not something I loathe in itself. I actually applaud it where it is proper. But being pedantic about points that make no salient difference to a discussion at hand and then declare superiority?

Well, I try to take it with humor.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aria\_Jenneth](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/aria_jenneth/32/469792_2.png) [@Aria\_Jenneth](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Aria_Jenneth)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 6:09pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/85 "2019-12-13T18:09:40Z")

</div>

I’ll just be scooting out of the way, now …

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 6:50pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/86 "2019-12-13T18:50:00Z")

</div>

_Activity_ does not require intent. _Opposition_, in the political sense, requires intent. The bacteria are not _opposing_ anything, but they are _active_, as opposed to a _passive_ agent of decay, such as emitted radiation breaking down the chemical bonds between molecules. Once emitted, the particle takes no action of its own.

And no, Aria, the corpse is not pushing back on attempts to hide it. And if you’re going to throw the classical laws of motion around, quote the whole thing rather than incomplete popular paraphasings:

> [@](#):
>
> To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

The second half is a rephrasing and clarification that no, these are not in fact separate actions, but rather parts of the whole interaction.

Moreover, my point to Elsebeth still stands, both on its own, and as a preliminary warning about what was to come.

In response to Nicoletta Mithra:

These are not difficult concepts, and I find your insistence that each step in the process must be laid out in detail to be disingenuous at best. What’s more, I have to say that I find it _incredibly_ dishonest and particularly obnoxious that one of the people who are quick to retreat to accusations of ‘semantics’ and ‘you know what I/they meant’ is now attempting to whine about not seeing every little step of the process. And I do fully expect you to now return to form and level accusations of semantics at me for _answering your damned question_.

There are two basic types of support, obviously: active support, whereby the individual undertakes active action that provides assistance to the efforts in question, and tacit, or implied support. The nature of active support is, again, unquestioned. Rather, the question in this case is ‘what constitutes tacit support?’

To understand and clearly nail down this answer first requires an accepted definition of ‘tacit’:

> [@](#):
>
> ### Tacit
> 
> tac·​it | \ ˈta-sət \
> 
> Definition of tacit
> 
> 1: expressed or carried on without words or speech  
> _the blush was a tacit answer_
> 
> 2: implied or indicated (as by an act or by silence) but not actually expressed  
> _tacit consent_  
> _tacit admission of guilt_

Thus, for something to be ‘tacit support’, it must be support that is expressed without words, or support that is implied (as by an act or by silence) but not actually expressed. So then, what constitutes ‘support’?

> [@](#):
>
> ### Support (noun)
> 
> sup·​port | \ sə-ˈpȯrt \
> 
> 1a: the act or process of supporting : the condition of being supported
> 
> b: assistance provided by a company to users of its products  
> _customer support_
> 
> 2: one that supports —often used attributively  
> _a support staff_
> 
> 3: sufficient strength in a suit bid by one’s partner in bridge to justify raising the suit

In our usage, we’re looking at (1), which, obviously, necessitates addressing the verb form:

> [@](#):
>
> transitive verb
> 
> 1: to endure bravely or quietly : BEAR
> 
> 2a (1): to promote the interests or cause of
> 
> (2): to uphold or defend as valid or right : ADVOCATE  
> _supports fair play_
> 
> (3): to argue or vote for  
> _supported the motion to lower taxes_
> 
> b (1): ASSIST, HELP  
> _bombers supported the ground troops_
> 
> (2): to act with (a star actor)
> 
> (3): to bid in bridge so as to show support for
> 
> c: to provide with substantiation : CORROBORATE  
> _support an alibi_
> 
> 3a: to pay the costs of : MAINTAIN  
> _support a family_
> 
> b: to provide a basis for the existence or subsistence of  
> _the island could probably support three_  
> _support a habit_
> 
> 4a: to hold up or serve as a foundation or prop for
> 
> b: to maintain (a price) at a desired level by purchases or loans
> 
> also : to maintain the price of by purchases or loans
> 
> 5: to keep from fainting, yielding, or losing courage : COMFORT
> 
> 6: to keep (something) going

For our purposes, definitions (4) and (5) are the least applicable (though of course, (5) could be seen to apply if we wanted). Instead, let us look at (1), (2), (3), and (6).

Does passive opposition—disapproving of a thing but taking no action and offering no persuasion against it (as that would be ‘active’)—constitute tacit support? Applying each definition, we find:

1: [implied or indicated but not expressed] [enduring bravely or quietly].  
I’d say this is a poor fit, but could be considered applicable.

2a1: [implied or indicated but not expressed] [promotion of the interests of]  
Let’s be generous and say ‘no’.

2a2: [implied or indicated but not expressed] [upholding or defending as valid or right]  
A case can be made that so long as one is not attempting persuasion against an action, that is an acknowledgment that the course of action is being upheld as valid, at the very least.

2a3: [implied or indicated but not expressed] [argument or voting in favor of]  
Clearly not.

2b1: [implied or indicated but not expressed] [assistance or help]  
Let’s stick a pin in this one, shall we?

2b2: [implied or indicated but not expressed] [acting with a star actor]  
Nope.

2b3: [implied or indicated but not expressed] [bidding in bridge so as to show support for]  
Within extremely limited circumstances, maybe, but again, let’s say ‘no’.

2c: [implied or indicated but not expressed] [providence of substantiation]  
Completely not applicable.

3a: [implied or indicated but not expressed] [paying the costs of]  
Let’s put that pin here, too. We’ll circle back.

3b: [implied or indicated but not expressed] [providence of the basis of existence or subsistence of]  
Outside of very limited conditions, deciding this would mean splitting extremely fine hairs that would, in fact, push us back toward (3a), so we can say ‘not really’ here, with the stipulation that (3a) clearly touches on this as well, for sufficiently broad framings of ‘costs’.

6: [implied or indicated but not expressed] [continuance of]  
Pin #3.

With this awareness, we now circle back to our ‘pins’ and ‘a case can be made’:

Implied ‘assistance or help’, ‘paying the costs of’ and/or ‘continuance of’, or implied upholding or defense of the validity or rightness of a course of action.

Ms. Mithra insists there is a logical balance point in the continuum of ‘support’ ↔ ‘oppose’, and in a purely logical construction, of course this is the case. However, real-world application is almost never a purely logical exercise, and politics and war are, perforce, real-world applications. Theory is fine, but even theory must acknowledge ‘the platonic ideal just isn’t how it actually works’.

So, what does ‘passive opposition’ entail? With regard to an individual actor, or even a large organization, it is certainly possible, to have no interaction with—and so neither support nor oppose the actions of—an actor.

However, when dealing with a state actor, this is only possible if one is completely divorced from interactions with that state. For example, anyone doing business in Jita is, inescapably, interacting with the Caldari State via broker fees and taxation.

Further complicating this is the international trade structure between even rival empires, and CONCORD itself. Money, after all, is fungible. Moneys paid to the Republic in order to support refugee relief efforts free up funds that can then be used to pay CONCORD’s expenses, and in turn, free up operating capital that might potentially otherwise have had to come from the Amarr Empire. While the chain of financial interactions quickly become extremely attenuated, they are never severed.

There is no standing by and saying ‘hey, I’m not a part of this either way’[1]. The primary forms of support when dealing with state actors are those diffused throughout the full hierarchy: distributed financial burden, and a lack of impediment. This is true of any course of action the state actor takes: while such actions remain theoretical, it is possible to achieve a passive position that offers only support or opposition.

Once a given course is _implemented_, however, that becomes impossible. The individual is either acting in opposition, or they are not. If they are not acting in opposition, but continue to pay their taxes, and continue to uphold the legitimacy of those undertaking the action, as well as the eligibility of those in power _to_ take that action, then they are, ‘paying the costs of’, and thereby ‘helping’ with the ‘continuance of’ the course of action, as well as upholding the validity of that course of action.

That, as we have seen, is ‘support’. That they are not expressly offering such support in words and clearly indicated deeds makes that ‘tacit support’. The individual’s personal, passive opposition is nothing.

Edit to add: **UGH** , I hate the way this interface screws with proper formatting.

* * *

1. This is especially true in a hierarchy where the default expectation is obedience, rather than opinionated debate. In societies where the populace is expected to vent their spleens, political leadership—and thus, those in control of military command and control structures—are responsive to sustained expressions of the public will. Even in the Caldari State, a large enough, sustained enough general workers’ strike within one of the Megacorporations would raise serious questions about the leadership of that Mega, and what decisions had been made which fomented active resistance.

In top-down societal structures, though, leadership is not answerable to its underlings. In these conditions it is far less likely to be responsive to expressions of discontent, save as labeling those involved as seditious or criminal, and respond with measures appropriate to such a designation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nicoletta_mithra/32/378065_2.png) [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nicoletta_Mithra)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:16pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/87 "2019-12-13T19:16:56Z")

</div>

1. _Activity_ is not the same as _action_.  
I was talking (human) action. Action requires intent.

2. I’m not whining, I’m just pointing out that you didn’t _show_ what you claimed to show. A claim to the steps being obvious does little to change that. Beyond that, I won’t respond to your ad hominem attacks as they aren’t pertaining points salient to the discussion at hand _at all_.

3. You are still implying that ‘to oppose’ intent is needed, while ‘to support’ no intent is needed. You fail to give an argument that supports this distinction: And your entire argument rests on that distinction, because only through that you can count paying of taxes as an act of support, even if those taxes are not paid with any intent to support specific state spendings.  
And there is an argument to be made that paying your taxes is mostly more of an non-intentional (because externally required) activity, rather than an action at all - and if not an action, then not a supportive action.  
Furthermore, it leads to the weird situation where someone in the Empire, even if actively opposing, say, slavery, finds himself in the situation that he either is also and at the same time supporting slavery - which shouldn’t be possible - or isn’t opposing slavery at all.

4. Your conception of ‘support’ is underdeveloped and that leads to you drawing conclusions that a more faithful analysis of ‘support’ would foreclude. It’s not tacit support a taxpayer gives to violent Reclaiming by paying taxes: It’s neither by necessity an _action of support_ expressed or carried on without words or speech, because that would require an intent to support, nor is support for any particular spending of tax money implied or indicated.

And to be extra-pedantic:  
5)_If_ the individual’s personal, passive opposition is _nothing_, then it can’t be support.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:34pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/88 "2019-12-13T19:34:24Z")

</div>

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> You are still implying that ‘to oppose’ intent is needed, while ‘to support’ no intent is needed. You fail to give an argument that supports this distinction: And your entire argument rests on that distinction, because only through that you can count paying of taxes as an act of support, even if those taxes are not paid with any intent to support specific state spendings.

To support the actions being undertaken does _not_ require intent. The action is already being undertaken. It requires no intent to see to its continuance, only abstention from active opposition.

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> Furthermore, it leads to the weird situation where someone in the Empire, even if actively opposing, say, slavery, finds himself in the situation that he either is also and at the same time supporting slavery - which shouldn’t be possible - or isn’t opposing slavery at all.

It does. And while this may seem a logical contradiction, the cluster is full of such complexities. The balance, though, is that active opposition must _outweigh_ the passive support of taxation and other societal furtherances, else it is a sham, and empty.

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> Your conception of ‘support’ is underdeveloped and that leads to you drawing conclusions that a more faithul analysis of ‘support’ would foreclude.

I’m sure you’ll be able to expand upon this and demonstrate it to be the case, then, since you so abhorred that lack of demonstration from me.

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> It’s not tacit support a taxpayer gives to violent Reclaiming by paying taxes: It’s neither by necessity an _action of support_ expressed or carried on without words or speech, because that would require an intent to support, nor is support for any particular spending of tax money implied or indicated.

I refer you back to ‘implied or indicated (as by an act **or by silence** ) but not actually expressed’.

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> 1. _If_ the individual’s personal, passive opposition is _nothing_ , then it can’t be support.

In balance, the individual’s personal, passive opposition does not outweigh their financial and implied support of the agencies carrying out the action they so disapprove. The net absolute value of their opposition is 0.

And you considered that empty little nothing ‘extra-pedantic’? Really?

_That_ is why I found the comparison insulting. It’d be less so if you were better at this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nicoletta_mithra/32/378065_2.png) [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nicoletta_Mithra)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:40pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/89 "2019-12-13T19:40:20Z")

</div>

‘To support’ **is** a _particular action_ with a particular intent (of support). If no intent is need to support, then the argument givn by Cpt. Jenneth is valid and ‘to oppose’ doesn’t need intention either. Also, then those are not actions.

That doesn’t change by the actions being undertaken that could be supported or opposed.

> [@Arrendis](#):
>
> I’m sure you’ll be able to expand upon this and demonstrate it to be the case, then, since you so abhorred that lack of demonstration from me.

As pointed out, above an in this post, repeatedly: To support is an action. Action implies intent.

> [@Arrendis](#):
>
> I refer you back to ‘implied or indicated (as by an act **or by silence** ) but not actually expressed’.

I refer you to:

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> nor is support for any particular spending of tax money implied or indicated.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:48pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/90 "2019-12-13T19:48:26Z")

</div>

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> ‘To support’ **is** a _particular action_ with a particular intent (of support). If no intent is need to support, then the argument givn by Cpt. Jenneth is valid and ‘to oppose’ doesn’t need intention either. Also, then those are not actions.

Not true. Once the action is undertaken, it will remain in effect until some impediment arises to stop it. No intent or action is needed to provide implied validation, aka tacit support, for that action. If an action is not considered to be valid, it will be opposed. If it is not opposed, it will not stop, and so what is demonstrated is acceptance of its validity.

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> I refer you to:
> 
> > [@Arrendis](#):
> >
> > nor is support for any particular spending of tax money implied or indicated.

First, I’ll thank you not to present your words as mine. Such a tactic does not inspire any kind of belief that you are arguing in any honest or good-faith capacity.

That said, it indicates a support for, and validation of, the judgments of those in power as to how they should proceed. This is, in fact, precisely _why_, absent active opposition on the specific issue, it can be taken as tacit support on that issue as well as all others.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nicoletta_mithra/32/378065_2.png) [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nicoletta_Mithra)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 8:04pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/91 "2019-12-13T20:04:02Z")

</div>

> [@Arrendis](#):
>
> If it is not opposed, it will not stop, and so what is demonstrated is acceptance of its validity.

Not stopping something is not the same as support. It’s simply not stopping it. Look at the nice dictionary definition you have produced above: You won’t find something similar as ‘not stopping something’. To say it’s tacit support doesn’t change this: Tacit only means, as you can see in the definition provided by yourself, that it’d be “expressed or carried on without words or speech” or is “implied or indicated”. Inaction, though is neither something that ‘is expressed’ and much less something ‘carried on’. In fact, inaction is the absence of expression, carrying on, implication or indication!

> [@Arrendis](#):
>
> First, I’ll thank you not to present your words as mine. Such a tactic does not inspire any kind of belief that you are arguing in any honest or good-faith capacity.

You’re welcome, it has been a simple copy&paste mistake. You know, mistakes can happen, and I thank your for pointing them out and I will gladly correct myself. I’m sure you’re gracious enough to accept my sincerest apologies, instead of pedanticly rubbing yourself up against points of a discussion, that aren’t salient to the topic at hand and easily forgiven as the simple mistakes they are.  
(P.S.: This is exactly the kind of abrasive behaviour -implying that it’s a tactic rather than a simple mistake- where I really and obviously stop seeing any similarities, even in style between us. It’s just _bad_ style. It also shows the lack of good-faith on your part.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 8:24pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/92 "2019-12-13T20:24:01Z")

</div>

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> Look at the nice dictionary definition you have produced above: You won’t find something similar as ‘not stopping something’.

In fact:

> [@Arrendis](#):
>
> to uphold or defend as valid or right

> [@Arrendis](#):
>
> to keep (something) going

Once inertia takes over, lack of active impediment is all that is required to keep something going. It is, in fact, support. Specifically, tacit support.

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> You’re welcome, it has been a simple copy&paste mistake. You know, mistakes can happen, and I thank your for pointing them out and I will gladly correct myself.

Apology accepted. However, as a point of clarity:

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> (P.S.: This is exactly the kind of abrasive behaviour -implying that it’s a tactic rather than a simple mistake- where I really and obviously stop seeing any similarities, even in style between us. It’s just _bad_ style. It also shows the lack of good-faith on your part.)

I have absolutely no reason to assume that someone who has consistently been dishonest and insulting is not engaging in the same sort of behavior. You say it was a simple mistake, and I’m both happy to hear that, and willing to take you at your word, but there existed no reason for me to take that as my first interpretation of your statement, or extend to you the benefit of the doubt.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nicoletta_mithra/32/378065_2.png) [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nicoletta_Mithra)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 8:26pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/93 "2019-12-13T20:26:38Z")

</div>

> [@Arrendis](#):
>
> Once inertia takes over, lack of active impediment is all that is required to keep something going. It is, in fact, support. Specifically, tacit support.

Inertia is _not_ someone keeping something going. If inertia is doing it, by defintion you don’t need to keep it moving, _ **it** keeps moving_.

P.S.: To make the important point here more explicit: In support, the supporter keeps something moving. If something keeps moving by itself, then not obstructing it isn’t a case of a supporter keeping it moving - it’s just not obstructing it. That’s not support, though.

> [@Arrendis](#):
>
> but there existed no reason for me to take that as my first interpretation of your statement, or extend to you the benefit of the doubt.

Principle of charitable interpretation. Yes, I fail to apply it at times as does anyone, but it’s a very, very good reason.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Elsebeth\_Rhiannon](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/elsebeth_rhiannon/32/418836_2.png) [@Elsebeth\_Rhiannon](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Elsebeth_Rhiannon)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 8:49pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/94 "2019-12-13T20:49:44Z")

</div>

What the f…

Listen, I just wanted to point out that even during the most peaceful Pax Amarria era, armed reclaiming was never really off the menu, and now the we are again comparing dick-tionaries.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 9:00pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/95 "2019-12-13T21:00:02Z")

</div>

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> P.S.: To make the important point here more explicit: In support, the supporter keeps something moving. If something keeps moving by itself, then not obstructing it isn’t a case of a supporter keeping it moving - it’s just not obstructing it. That’s not support, though,

Once again, you’re demonstrating that bad faith tendency by conflating physics and politics.

So, _again_: in considering the actions of state actors, the support is provided through both taxes and not causing problems—passivity and lack of obstruction. The inertia is that funding—the taxes—continues to go to the policy in place, and leadership continues to not see active opposition. The lack of active opposition thus becomes tacit support.

Notice how this demonstrates that something the individual is doing—paying their taxes—provides support for the course of action they claim to oppose. No matter how often you say that it requires intent, it doesn’t. No matter how many times you attempt to claim that it isn’t support, it is.

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> Principle of charitable interpretation. Yes, I faild to apply it at times as does anyone, but it’s a very, very good reason.

The first time someone evidences behavior that might be seen as not arguing in good faith, yes. Once a sustained pattern of behavior exists, as very much does in your case from prior discussions, no. And in fact, even from this discussion. For example:

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> and doesn’t decry someone because they gave the wrong date or month or something like that.

My needling Aldrith on his error with the month was not part of any point that was attempting to be persuasive. It was _clearly_ just me amusing myself by finding a technicality that allowed me to point out errors with every single sentence of his post. In fact, it was an afterthought, after I noticed precisely that fact. That doesn’t make it a bad-faith argument, and it doesn’t make it dishonest. It wasn’t even me attempting to claim that kind of error shows he can’t tell time, or something. It was just me being an asshole to Aldrith Shutaq.

Gonna let you in on a little secret here you might not have noticed, btw: I’m an asshole.

Being an asshole doesn’t mean I’m arguing in bad faith, _either_. And it doesn’t mean I’m being dishonest. It is, in fact, nothing that would impair the _quality_ of my points. Implying that it does, as you did? Doing that, just for the record, _does_ indicate bad faith and dishonesty.

> [@Elsebeth\_Rhiannon](#):
>
> we are again comparing dick-tionaries

I tried to be brief and succinct and not get into the weeds, _dammit_! I did. I even pointed out specifically that attempt **before** this all went off into Nicoletta’s dishonest idiocy, specifically because I knew you’d react that way.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nicoletta_mithra/32/378065_2.png) [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nicoletta_Mithra)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 9:35pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/96 "2019-12-13T21:35:47Z")

</div>

> [@Arrendis](#):
>
> Notice how this demonstrates that something the individual is doing—paying their taxes—provides support for the course of action they claim to oppose.

Notice that paying taxes is rarely something that someone does. Usually, an employee gets his wage paid with taxes already deducted. Even so, if one does pay taxes, this might be a doing, but it rarely is an action, as paying your taxes is an requirement placed on you. And even if someone pays their taxes intentionally, again, that does neither imply, indicate, nor does it express or carry on support of _any specific state spendings_.

Also, I’d claim that political inertia just works as I pointed out above and there is no need to interpretatively framing what I said as ‘conflating physics and politics’. If anything, you applied a term from physics (inertia) to the political sphere. Anyhow, political inertia can be reasonably understood as meaning exactly that something (e.g. a political institution) keeps moving by itself and that not obstructing it isn’t a case of a supporter keeping it moving - it’s just not obstructing it. And that’s not support.

And the same goes for you: Your claim that it doesn’t require intention doesn’t mean that it doesn’t. You have given no reason to assume that this is the case and it is general consensus amongst philosophers of action that (human) action in general does imply intent. This is then also true for any type of action: Like ‘to support’. As I already said, if you don’t agree that support is an action, then you get into exactly the troubles Ms. Jenneth pointed out with ‘opposition’, as that, too, can be framed as non intentional and non-action.

> [@Arrendis](#):
>
> It was just me being an asshole to Aldrith Shutaq.

I didn’t say at all that it impairing the quality of your actual points, I claimed it to be _bad style_ and differentiating you from me. And being an asshole definitely is _bad style_. Honestly.

Also, there is nothing dishonest about what I’ve been writing here, but I can’t prevent you from taking it that way, I suppose.

Anyhow, before we start talking in circles, I will try to summarize where the fundamental disagreement lies:  
You claim that inaction can be (tacit) support. Intention is not needed.  
I claim that support is an action. Thus intention is an integral part of supporting someone or something.

I haven’t seen anything that convinces me that you are right and I am wrong - and it seems the inverse is true as well. At this point we seem to only reiterate what we previously said.

So, I suggest we agree to disagree. If you’re not able to do so, I won’t fret, no worries.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nicoletta_mithra/32/378065_2.png) [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nicoletta_Mithra)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 9:38pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/97 "2019-12-13T21:38:43Z")

</div>

> [@Elsebeth\_Rhiannon](#):
>
> Listen, I just wanted to point out that even during the most peaceful Pax Amarria era, armed reclaiming was never really off the menu, and now the we are again comparing dick-tionaries.

And I hope I already made clear that retaining the option of violent solutions doesn’t preclude one from being honest about preferring peaceful solutions. Neither does it require lying to oneself. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

It merely requires a moderate and realistic approach to (foreign) politics.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Saronu\_Yassavi](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/saronu_yassavi/32/386208_2.png) [@Saronu\_Yassavi](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Saronu_Yassavi)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 9:43pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/98 "2019-12-13T21:43:46Z")

</div>

Another point of realism is that you cannot simultaneously prepare for and prevent a war. For either side not to have prepared would have required a trust or frankly incompetence that wasn’t there.  
I would have preferred it not come to this, but we are all subject to obligations of the moment.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 9:48pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/99 "2019-12-13T21:48:18Z")

</div>

> [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](#):
>
> Notice that paying taxes is rarely something that someone does. Usually, an employee gets his wage paid with taxes already deducted. Even so, if one does pay taxes, this might be a doing, but it rarely is an action, as paying your taxes is an requirement placed on you. And even if someone pays their taxes intentionally, again, that does neither imply, indicate, nor does it express or carry on support of _any specific state spendings_ .

And once again: it expresses generic support for _all_ state expenditures that are not specifically and visibly opposed. As for whether or not paying taxes is something ‘someone does’… sure. Income tax in a system where it’s automatically debited is a thing. Even in those systems, there’s usually an annual settling up, where employees have to verify their earnings, and may need to pay extra. There’s sales tax, which can be evaded by going to the black market or dealing in cash with unscrupulous vendors. There’s property taxes. Some governments institute vehicle registration taxes. Luxury taxes. VATs.

Yes, smart systems will try to hide as much of that as possible behind bundles where the taxes are automatically added or debited, but that doesn’t change anything. For example, in most systems of auto-debited income tax, the employee indicates the level of withholdings taken every paycheck, and then settles the account at the end of the year.

And that’s not an ‘agree to disagree’ level issue, that’s you fundamentally misrepresenting how taxation systems work.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nicoletta_mithra/32/378065_2.png) [@Nicoletta\_Mithra](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nicoletta_Mithra)\
**Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 10:32pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930/100 "2019-12-13T22:32:33Z")

</div>

> [@Arrendis](#):
>
> expresses generic support

I already expressed my disagreement with that claim. It’s required, citizens don’t have a choice in paying taxes. It’s not expressing support with anything.

> [@Arrendis](#):
>
> that’s you fundamentally misrepresenting how taxation systems work

I think you fundamentally misrepresent taxation. To repeat myself: It’s not a matter of choice, it’s a requirement to pay taxes. They are imposed on you by your government, it’s not you choosing to pay them. They are _involuntary_ levies. As such, it can’t be a sign of expressing support, or supporting anything, not even tacitly.

[Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930.md?page=4)

[Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-nature-and-end-of-pax-amarria/205930.md?page=6)