Security of Intaki is being farmed out to a known criminal organization. What do our pro-separatist quisling apologists have to say in response?

I call on all Federation Militia pilots to boycott Intaki. No upgrades. They don't want our help, and therefore we should not give it.

Thanks to the Federation Militia, you are closer to your dream of independence as well. You live in a Federation - the only true democracy in New Eden, not a Fascist dictatorship. You are welcome.

As for my friends in the IPI, I am sure words speaking larger than action from the Federation comes as no surprise to you. Best of luck in your efforts.

Basically, if you feel that the powers that be are not living up to your expectations, maybe they do not owe you that service? Take up arms, find like-minded people, and push the scourge of piracy out of Placid. That is assuming you have the mettle and oratory to achieve such a thing, hmm?

Amarrians should be aware that while both the Empire and the Intaki are deeply spiritual societies, similarities end there, and the vast majority of Intaki would be gravely insulted by most comparisons the average Amarrian capsuleer often tries to draw between their cultures.

I believe the Pax Amarria is a political manifest (Emperor Heideran's, to be specific), not a religious text.

Since political leaders are also religious leaders in the Amarr Empire, it could be argued to be a religious text on that technicality - but to the best of my knowledge, the Pax Amarria is not regarded as "scripture".

Placid, it's not a region of the Federation anymore. It is a property of the State that is currently occupied by federal oppressors.

About 'liberation' and 'occupation'.
Amarr bring faith, morality and teaching to peoples.
We bring progress, technological advances and prosperity.
But minmatars and gallentes bring NOTHING. They only take your property, giving nothing in return. Nothing, called "freedom". You can't eat freedom, you can't sleep on freedom, you can't warm yourself with freedom. You can only die in freedom.
And the worst thing, is that some peoples (mostly stupid ones) buy this freedom, this chaos, emptiness and void. Why? Because gallentean beurocrates and politicians sell this nothing with tinsel of beauty words (from their point of view) like "liberation".
In fact, we have to save people from such liberations and freedom.

Oho, Sir. If you wish to be formal in your descriptions of logical argument, then I shall most happily provide. The security of rigorous definitions provide clear direction and a level playing field.

First, note that I did not posit a position, I asked a question, and illuminated this question with an example. Thus your accusation of fallacy is misplaced, as I had no prepositions from which to draw a conclusion. I was asking for clarification.

Secondly, I notice in your reply that you have not answered my question. Instead you have chosen to expand on your definition of "autonomy" and how it is sacrificied, postulating that some sacrifices perserve autonomy while others do not. This is the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, the irrelevant conclusion. It is true that some bargains made are irreversible, but it does not answer the question.

I do apologize, though, I was brief and vague in my asking earlier, no doubt leading you down this path. I will try again.

Why do you believe it such that an individual who trades autonomy for peace of mind deserves neither? Why do you feel that the sacrifice of ones' self-direction in order to purchase happiness deserves subjugation and misery?

The main differences are that the corridors are cleaner, the crew are never late, drunk or otherwise delinquent in duty, you can walk without a bodyguard without fear of getting kidnapped or mugged, and there's virtually no infighting loyalists inbetween.

If by "lively" you mean pleasant and civil, then yes.

So are you trying to prove my point that he champions causes doomed to failure?

...says the man who felt the need to dim the lights and turn away from the camera when posing for his Neocomm display picture.

You changed it, I see. That's much better.

I have to say, though, that you still fit our recruitment criteria as imagined by yourself. Most people would, however, so don't let that get to you.