The nature and end of Pax Amarria

[Nicoletta_Mithra]

To me it seemed rather, that she was speaking about >the whole “peaceful and nice Amarrians”<. Maybe you can clarify, Cpt. Rhiannon?

[Ascentior]

The reclaiming is absolutely an important part of The Faith. You’re conflating a forceful reclamation (one tool) with The Reclaiming (the intent). Your original statement was that for someone to believe in the intent, but not the tool, they must be lying to themselves. I suggest that people, even those who are stubborn, can believe in an intent but not how it is or has been attempted.

I’ve heard that some even oppose this disastrous CEWPA war, but still would rather defend their people. And without a better tool, they do what they must.

[Arrendis]

@Nicoletta_Mithra

Second, we have to establish a sensible understanding of what ‘support’ means. I’d venture that ‘to support’ means an action. And actions imply intent. One can very well support the Empire in general, without having the intent of supporting a violent Reclaiming. (That is to say, humans are able to make exceptions.) If action presupposes intent, then someone like that is not engaging in the action of supporting a violent Reclaiming . That a violent Reclaiming might still benefit from my actions might be a side effect or the result of conflicting interests and intentions, though. To ascribe, given those conditions, to me the action of supporting a violent Reclaiming would be a stretch, in my humble opinion.

Do you actively oppose a violent Reclaiming? If not, then you give it tacit support. To claim otherwise is, yeah, lying. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

@Nicoletta_Mithra

If one doesn’t agree with the above argument, then I don’t see, how one could really avoid similar, symmetric arguments being made about almost everyone else in the Cluster: “Anyone supporting the Republic knowingly or unknowingly supports the policy of dealing with the Amarr Empire violently (one could argue the goal is genocide, the extermination of a culture that revolves around the concept of Reclaiming). Thus, any ‘Matari’ who pose as ‘peaceful’ are just insincere or lying to themselves.”

And thus, we come to the difference between being the people intent on obliterating all other cultures, and the people defending themselves from them. Whether by violence or no, the Reclaiming is nothing short of that.

[Nicoletta_Mithra]

@Arrendis

Do you actively oppose a violent Reclaiming? If not, then you give it tacit support. To claim otherwise is, yeah, lying. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I don’t think that not actively opposing something is the same as giving it tacit support. There are worlds between one and the other. Tacit opposition, outspoken yet otherwise passive opposition…

@Arrendis

And thus, we come to the difference between being the people intent on obliterating all other cultures, and the people defending themselves from them. Whether by violence or no, the Reclaiming is nothing short of that.

Well, how comes, then, that there are different and distinct cultures within the Empire? Kahnid, Ni-Kunni, Ammatar… even in the different Domains there are different cultures. A Tash-Murkonese lives quite differently from a Sarumite, for example. If the Amarr were out to obliterate all other cultures, there shouldn’t be other cultures within the Empire.

[Elsebeth_Rhiannon]

@Nicoletta_Mithra

I don’t think that not actively opposing something is the same as giving it tacit support.

To clarify my position: I do not necessarily think just ignoring something is giving it tacit support.

I do think however, that when the current Empire with its current policies exists, for example Reclaiming people for it “by the Good Word”, is definitely tacit support. Even if your means of reclaiming are nice, the Faith, as is, is not.

[Astaire_Quatrevaux]

I may come to regret this, Captain, but out of curiosity, I’d like to ask:

You’ve conceded that there can be “nice” Amarrians on the “personal level”. If the Faith is wholly evil, then how can those individuals be kind? How can a person believe in an evil God and the beliefs and practices that that entails, but also be kind, generous, and respectful?

[Elsebeth_Rhiannon]

@Astaire_Quatrevaux

If the Faith is wholly evil

That’s where your assumptions fall short.

[Arrendis]

@Nicoletta_Mithra

I don’t think that not actively opposing something is the same as giving it tacit support.

That’s ok. You’re allowed to be wrong.

@Nicoletta_Mithra

Well, how comes, then, that there are different and distinct cultures within the Empire? Kahnid, Ni-Kunni, Ammatar… even in the different Domains there are different cultures. A Tash-Murkonese lives quite differently from a Sarumite, for example. If the Amarr were out to obliterate all other cultures, there shouldn’t be other cultures within the Empire.

The Khanid culture is gone. What is there is the Amarr’s version of a Khanid culture. The same goes for the Ni-Kunni, the Ammatar, and so on. If there were parts of those cultures that did not meet with the approval of the Amarr, they would remove them.

They are not ‘other cultures’. They are simply variations within allowed tolerances.

[Nicoletta_Mithra]

@Elsebeth_Rhiannon

I do think however, that when the current Empire with its current policies exists, for example Reclaiming people for it “by the Good Word” , is definitely tacit support. Even if your means of reclaiming are nice, the Faith, as is, is not.

The Empire, the Faith are mixed bags: That’s true of most, if not all things humans achieved. There’s good and there are flaws. Giving it support in general doesn’t mean that one has to give support to all that is part of it and that one is blind to flaws or opposed to improvement.

Actually, as has been pointed out already, the very symbol of the Amarr Empire makes clear that is not perfect, but flawed. If you can’t give support to what is flawed, though, you will never, ever be able to make it towards perfection.

[Elsebeth_Rhiannon]

There’s flaws and there’s flaws, though.

Slavery is more serious a flaw than say promoting the use of traditional ways to get high, if you ask me.

[Nicoletta_Mithra]

Ms. Arrendis,

I thank you for your input. If you had actual arguments I’d be even more delighted, but your opinions are appreciated.

Have a good life.

[Astaire_Quatrevaux]

@Elsebeth_Rhiannon

That’s where your assumptions fall short.

I’m only going by what you said:

@Elsebeth_Rhiannon

Even if your means of reclaiming are nice, the Faith, as is, is not.

You didn’t say “some of the Faith” or “parts of the Faith” or “the version of the Faith that’s practiced and forced upon others by ill-intentioned individuals.”

[Elsebeth_Rhiannon]

The opposite of “nice” is not “totally and completely evil”.

[Astaire_Quatrevaux]

Then you’re saying that the Faith is not totally and completely evil?

[Elsebeth_Rhiannon]

Uh… yes?

[Arrendis]

The arguments are self-evident. Passive opposition is not opposition. Those taking the action you find objectionable do not need your cooperation: they already have the wherewithal to undertake that action. In order for opposition to have any meaningful existence, it must be an opposition that actively makes undertaking that action more difficult.

[Nicoletta_Mithra]

That barely manages to be an argument why passive opposition might not be opposition at all. And even if it holds, it doesn’t show in the least that not directly and actively opposing something automatically equals tacit support - it at best shows that it won’t make undertaking the disagreed with action more difficult.

[Arrendis]

@Elsebeth_Rhiannon You see this, right? You see that I’ve tried not to be the pedantic jerk we both know I can be. You can see that I’ve even gone so far as to be brief in these replies, and she’s blatantly using that as a kind of ‘you didn’t show your work’ complaint, right?

[Aria_Jenneth]

Arrendis? Just for the record, Ms. Mithra’s style is closer than maybe anyone else’s I know to your own.

There are differences, but, you’re very nearly in a mirror match.

[Arrendis]

That is, without a doubt, the most insulting thing you have ever said to me. When I object to things, I have reasons for those objections, not simply ‘nu-uh’.