Are you qualified to decide what one life is worth? Man, woman, child are they the same, different?
They cannot be rationalized any way other than numerically when it’s more people than you will ever be able to say that you knew.
I’m not being blithe, that was dismissive. But by all means continue to pander to the crowd.
So as one of the individuals whose family was hit by an attack following an exchange of words with Chakaid, I’d like to say a couple things.
For one thing, even if Chakaid is given every benefit of the doubt and we assume that he had nothing to do with the attacks themselves… after the second or third attack targeting one of his enemies, he should have realized that the Blooders were at the very least using his words as cues for where to attack. At that point, he had a responsibly to be careful with what he said and he did not bear that responsibility. Now, with him having accused me of being behind the attack on my own family, I’m not disposed towards giving him much in the way of the benefit of the doubt. After the most recent blood fantasies he vomited onto these forums, I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt Chakaid’s true nature.
For another thing, I think that the latest development with the ennoblement of the good Lord Governor of the Mandate and his being awarded the Cross of the Sacred Throne Order goes to show that much of the rest of Amarr, including Her Imperial Majesty, doesn’t buy into the sorts of rhetoric that Chakaid tends to spew. If anything these recent developments should serve as a clear sign that we loyalists are correct in our criticisms of the man and perhaps should even be more bold in them. Chakaid is a wretch that will do nothing but drag the rest of Holy Amarr down should we try to defend him and his actions, so my suggestion is… to not try. His deplorable actions in Kahah can be shown to be such as easily as contrasting them with the pacification efforts in Thebeka and Alkasbi. Chakaid was unnecessarily vicious towards victims of a blooder attack and acted in ways that should embarrass every one of us.
They’re worth exactly the same as any other life: everything, to themselves. The very fact that you’re looking for ways to rationalize the murder of millions of people, most of whom were guilty only of living in the target zones… honestly, I can’t even begin to fathom that. It is simply incomprehensible to me.
Long may the wise leadership shown in the mandate endure. However regarding it to be vindication of your ill-advised, public and clearly continuing outbursts borders on farce.
Thinking we can have the future exemplified by the admirable progress in the mandate without the existence of those whose place is to make hard choices and do unpalatable things is quite incredible.
As is the assertion that loyalists share your views, I also would have been wary of making great claims of loyalty after leaving an order held in as much esteem as the Sacred Throne so promptly after your own liege ordered a new reclaiming. An act easily interpreted as disloyal to both, especially after public criticism of his decree.
Your past service leads me to believe Lady Elkin that you are indeed loyal, and a patriot. But a political ingenue who is very fortunate to be afforded the protection granted by her status as a capsuleer.
To rationalise is to make rational, it is the first thing anyone should do when examining a situation so emotionally charged as this. It’s an oversimplification to say ten dead is ten times as bad as one dead, but it will suffice.
It was Lord Lokri’s estate on Oris, not Lord Avarr’s.
“attempt to explain or justify (one’s own or another’s behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.”
Since we’re not extending anyone any courtesy. That’s not ‘to make rational’, but if you need to simplify it like that, it’d be closer to ‘to come up with something that sounds rational even if you know you’re full of crap’… which I assume you do, cuz you are.
Honestly, I get Gaven and Garion confused so often, you’d think they were both PIE Chapter Masters or something.
You quoted one of several meanings. “to apply logic or reason to (something)” is another, but frankly this is above and beyond even your usual pedantry. If you’re going to play word games at least have the courtesy to be correct.
Sorry, I don’t see yours there.
You all are still engaging with the slaver Yassavi, huh? My advice: don’t waste your time.
She either knows she is wrong yet continues to argue against all facts and reason (in which case she’s a troll) or, she truly believes the crap she’s spewing (in which case she’s a brainwashed fool).
There is no reaching her in either case.
1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: such as
a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of
rationalize a myth
b : to attribute (one’s actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives rationalized his dislike of his brother
broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for
rationalize the problem
2 : to free (a mathematical expression) from irrational partsrationalize a denominator
3 : to apply research-based managerial principles to (something, such as an industry or its operations) for increased productivity and efficiency.
Can we be done with this now? Or if you insist I can cite another dictionary that contains the precise definition I used. But this one is in closer accord to what I said prior to seeking reference material and quite neatly illustrates what I suspect you already knew. That the definition you initially insisted to be the definitive one is a specific case of the broader definition I used.
Given that Lord Avarr is not and has never been in PIE, that’s an odd statement to make.
But I must admit deep confusion why anyone at all would defend Alar Chakaid after the last year.
Well, Chapter Master, I think Ms. Yassavi is simply a political ingenue who is very fortunate to have just been granted her status as a capsuleer. As she is newer here and may not be as familiar with him as the more long-term regulars on the IGS are, I for one can perhaps forgive her ignorance. I do hope she comes around to seeing Chakaid as he is sooner rather than later, though.
MMm, no. You seem to not understand what you yourself have quoted, as the general definition (1) you cite doesn’t actually agree with you, but with me.
Tell me, when you say that that many deaths can only be ‘rationalized numerically’, do you really mean to say that you were trying to see the value of deaths by bringing them into line with reason? Because I promise, they were already in accord with reason. They were dead, for the reason that he killed them.
No, Ms. Yassavi, attempting to rationalize the murder of millions of people by bringing it into accord with reason is hardly an apt descriptor of what you were doing. Rather, it’s very clear you were attempting to cause the murder of millions to seem reasonable, and to create an excuse and more attractive explanation than ‘Alar Chakaid is a blood-hungry pig who gets off on causing suffering and should probably be lowered, one centimeter at a time, into a blender, over and over again, until the rest of the universe runs out of sadists who are willing to inflict pain on him’.
It’s the G-names, dammit. I confuse you two less now than I used to. Just be glad I never got either of you confused with that Garkeh fellow!
Please explain to me, and feel free to use small words how that is not in agreement with ‘to bring into accord with reason’.
Well, to start off:
Shoosh, meat-puppet Shutaq. Go ask Arrach Sarum what your opinion is.
Next:
Because it ignores the fullness of the definition. It would be like claiming that the definition of imagination is ‘the power of forming’. Additionally, it misrepresents what you’re actually doing with it.
Given the remaining portion of the sentence is separated by ‘or’ it only becomes relevant if I cast aspersions upon the validity of your definition. Which I have not, it is valid. Just not the one I was using.
Ugh. No, because you’re only parsing the first part of the sentence that way. Reassembled without the inserted formatting (intended to clarify and focus the reader’s attention), it becomes the following:
To bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: such as to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation [of a phenomenon], or to attribute (one’s actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives. Broadly, to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for [an occurence].
This is:
[Clause 1] or [Clause 2]: such as [clause a], or [clause b].
Both (a) and (b) apply to and expand on both (1) and (2), as (1) and (2) are different ways of expressing the same general concept and applying it to events that are in (1) and (a) undirected and without intent, ie: happenstance or natural processes, and in (2) and (b) directed and undertaken with intent, regardless of the conscious or subconscious nature of that intent. That general concept is:
broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for
Indeed, such as indicates examples. Not that all other cases are invalid.
To rationalise is to impart a state of rationality upon something, whether sincere or insincere.
Rationality is conformity to reason.
Cling to whatever definition you wish and keep lawyering over it. Unless you care to refute either of those truths it’s empty.
Any case which does not conform to the final, all-encompassing statement, are invalid.
‘To create an excuse or more attractive explanation for’.
If you’re insisting that you’re making things ‘conform’ to reason and rationality without that as the larger goal, then no, it doesn’t conform to the final, all-encompassing statement, and so, is invalid.
I mean, I can’t help it if you’re just too stupid to understand, but at the very least, you might want to stop demonstrating that, and get back to just being an apologist for a vicious murdering bastard whom your more informed Amarr compatriots are all telling you is an indefensible piece of excrement… even the one who can’t actually express that because he’s just a meat-puppet, and so has to be far more careful in his statements.
You are a very tiresome person. I am sure you are in violation of some Scriptural passage about the virtue of shutting the hell up, but I am too tired to look for it right now.