Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Takakura Hirohito
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 13:12:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 25/01/2007 13:10:07 In another thread a fellow pod-pilot asked several questions of the Star Fraction and provided a hypothetical situation for review. Jasmine Constantine replied the thread was closed.
Quote: Start your own thread. This one is done.
I didnt post those questions so I wont take credit for them as Se'la Rox has posed some interesting points to consider. I will paste his post below and await the answers of the Star Fraction.
Quote: I have a few questions, purely for my own information, so I can understand better the motivations and specific aims of The Star Fraction.
Originally by: Tecam Hund- We want free and open universe where every individual is a sovereign individual.
I nice idea. One question (and it's an honest enquiry before anyone feels the need to roundly defame me): in such a society, who defends the weak, the helpless and those too inexperienced to defend themselves?
Originally by: Tecam Hund- We expect to achieve it through leading by example and striking against the strongholds of archaic traditions which hold back the humanity.
Such as? What organisations would come under this banner? Does the Star Fraction consider all faction-based organisations inherently against their ideology?
Originally by: Tecam HundThose who actively attempt to limit freedom of others and spread imperialism, nationalism and other regressive concepts are dealt with (forcibly if needed) when and if possible.
Again, this would require some clarification. It's a very vague term, which leaves considerable latitude when it comes to interpretation.
A hypothetical scenario:
A corporation is based in a specific constellation within an empire. The corporation views it's main role as defending that area of space from pirate incursion, in order to defend those within the constellation from possible attack (although will not interfere with sanction wars). The other inhabitants of the constellation do not "owe" the corporation anything, and the corporation does not have (or desire) any control over any inhabitants of the constellation. The corporation does not hold control over any resources within the constellation. The corporation is not hostile to any corporation/faction, other than those entities that attack it, and pirate factions who prey upon those who cannot defend themselves. The corporation does intend to expand it's area of operations further ie. is non-expansionist.
Under those (hypothetical) conditions, would the corporation be considered valid as a target for the Star Fraction?
I asked questions to that werent answered about the results of Star Fraction operations and piracy in areas theyve freed for the pod pilots. Those questions were not answered either so I will post them here.
Quote: I asked earlier if the Star Fraction supported piracy. Garreck answered for them but I never heard from anyone from the Star Fraction. These black rabbit people I have read about are camping gates? That is the action of a pirate. And didnt Star Fraction just align with them in another war? If they are gate camping I assume Star Fraction will be wardecing them immediately to defend the concept of freespace? Anything else would appear hypocritical.
As a new pod-pilot who wants to be educated on the ways of the pod-pilot freespace captains I would appreciate answers so I can understand what is going on.
Taki
|
Tecam Hund
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 13:26:00 -
[2]
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465326
Posted just a couple minutes after you. Please move the discussion there.
|
Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 13:35:00 -
[3]
I'll try to answer as many as I can, but I hope you understand that a. My time is limited, b. when large and open questions are asked, things can be missed. Also, I think most of the questions can be distilled down to 2, so will answer those in a hope those answers will satisfy
1. Does SF support piracy?
From my reading, this seemed to be the crux of all the questions. The answer is no. However, do not confuse "not supporting" with "opposing". We, the SF, go were we will, as we will. If a someone tries to stop us or otherwise attacks us, we will shoot them. And keep shooting them from that point on (though we always allow for diplomacy).
2. Who will defend the helpless and inexperienced?
This is were it gets sticky. We believe "the helpless" do not (or at least, should not) really exist. This is one of the concepts we fight against. If everyone learns to defend themselves, there is no helplessness. We believe that the very act of "anti piracy" creates a culture of the "defender" and the "helpless", or as it can also be seen "master" and "servant". Under the anti pirate culture, the "helpless" must support the "anti pirate" or they will fall prey to the pirate. We say, if the helpless learns to defend himself, he is on equal terms with the anti pirate. At which time he can either defend himself from piracy or band with others if the threat is too strong. Either way, he has acted in his own self interest from a point of strength and has not needed to bend a knee to any force. --------------------------------------------
Join Now |
Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 13:36:00 -
[4]
ah, seems my comrade beat me to it --------------------------------------------
Join Now |
Jasmine Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 13:51:00 -
[5]
Now part of your problem Takakura Hirohito is that you provide matched couplets of questions and answers and assumptions and analysis in your own text. It makes your presentation appear nothing but a political smear campaign.
But hey, in an excess of hope over experience I will answer the question elements of your post and correct your misunderstandings as best I can:
Do the Star Fraction support Piracy û define ôsupportö? (do you mean we pat them on the back when they kill people? Give them ships and money, help them murder people and collect the ransom payments?) or do you mean that support = not shooting pirates on sight?
Do we conduct piracy operations? No. Are we hostile to some ôpirateö organisations? û Yes. Are we friendly to some ôpirateö organisations? û Yes. To we give aid and material and physical support to these friendly ôpirateö organisations in the practise of their ôpiracyö? û No. Do we ever help a friendly organisation attack a neutral organisation? û No. Do we attack neutral anti-pirate organisations who are content not to attack us? û No. Will we defend a friendly ôpirateö from attack from neutral organisation? û No. Does this mean we donÆt really value the term ôpirateö or afford it special relevance? û exactly.
This means that our philosophy is best understood in very basic terms. We maintain a neutral-respecting stance on independent pilots and corporations. We wonÆt fire first and unless your corporation or alliance has a history of aggression against us you have nothing to fear from us on a chance meeting.
This means we donÆt shoot ôpiratesö unless they shoot us first. This means we donÆt consider ôpiratesö any different from outworld NBSI entities. People who shoot neutrals are likely to end up fighting us since weÆll repay their aggression with aggression. This means that we consider an organisation like Black Rabbits is no different in ideology from an organisation like Omerta Syndicate and the only thing that will determine our alliance standings is the actual record of interaction between us and them and setting of positive standings respectively.
The hard truth is that by and large we we literally donÆt care what external organisations do to each other in their spare time - we are nobodies keeper or policemen. Condemn this approach as profoundly individualist, brutally selfish and non-community-spirited as you wish û but itÆs the truth, and without that truth youÆll have trouble ever understanding us.
So what is the basics of cooperation between the Black Rabbits and Star Fraction? Same as any other mutual +10 standing relationship: WeÆll help them shoot mutual -10s and they help us shoot mutual -10s. If we are camping a gate for CYI targets in lowsec Placid and a neutral arrives what will typically happen is that the Rabbits will engage and Star Fraction will play absolutely no part.
ôIf they are gate camping I assume Star Fraction will be wardecing them immediately to defend the concept of freespace? Anything else would appear hypocritical.ö
See this is your problem û assumptions and pre-judgements. You assume weÆll be wardeccing somebody for shooting at somebody else? Why would we. If they shoot at us weÆll shoot them back. And I assure you what you should asking is what is ôfreespaceö and what is the Star Fractions concept of ôfreespaceö û this is not an absolute and there are many different interpretations of what it actually is. Ask yourself:
Why would Star Fraction value friendship with people that others consider ôpiratesö and villains?
Your knee-jerk reaction is ôhypocrisy!ö and you type paragraphs of diatribe as ôoutraged of placidö but why not ask why?
Why not open your mind and ask us to explain it without the assumptions and pre-judgement and peanut gallery analysis to cloud your thoughts?
Why not consider for a moment why the "pirate-befriending" Star Fraction has eliminated more "pirates" in Placid in 2 weeks than CYI did in six months? Much more interesting.
Star Fraction is recruiting
|
DutchGunner
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 18:32:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sable Schroedinger
2. Who will defend the helpless and inexperienced?
This is were it gets sticky. We believe "the helpless" do not (or at least, should not) really exist. This is one of the concepts we fight against. If everyone learns to defend themselves, there is no helplessness. We believe that the very act of "anti piracy" creates a culture of the "defender" and the "helpless", or as it can also be seen "master" and "servant". Under the anti pirate culture, the "helpless" must support the "anti pirate" or they will fall prey to the pirate. We say, if the helpless learns to defend himself, he is on equal terms with the anti pirate. At which time he can either defend himself from piracy or band with others if the threat is too strong. Either way, he has acted in his own self interest from a point of strength and has not needed to bend a knee to any force.
That all sounds very logical but do you/does SF also consider this: if a anti-pirate corp tries to keep a part of space clean and helps all other corperation in the area to defend themselves, withouth having to go through the trial-and-error way? After all, all starting corperations and entities have a start and are not able to defend themselves against big corperations or alliances. All the mighty entities started the same way, as a tiny nut. Now they are mighty oaks.
But then again i quess there is a big grey zone in every black and white view on this matter.
Please note that this is not my opinion on any views of involved parties. It is just to make my view on this specific question and answer.
|
Coeleth
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 18:52:00 -
[7]
I generally avoid getting involved here as I so detest the insult flinging that inevitably occurs, but this thread seems civil for now, so here goes:
You would have to consider the motivation for the pirate hunter corporation. If pirate hunting is their income, then we would not be concerned, or if they do it for sport. If they hunt pirates with the intention of policing an area of space, then that brings up a yellow flag. Firstly, who are they to impress their notion of justice upon anyone else, pirate or pacifist? No, that would not in and of itself merit a declaration of war, but yes, it is at odds with our philisophy.
You see, while you may argue that the corporation's motives are altruistic, which is laudable, it is also regressive, for it falls back on the notion of the protector, the elite, the overlord. Those being protected, whether they go willingly, or simply benefit passively from this protection, become the protected, the underclasses, the weak.
The post-humanist alternative we advocate, is that each individual occupant of that area of space is, in and of themselves, a sovereign entity, possessing and holding at their disposal, the means to repel, or at least resist the unwanted aggression of the pirates. And a hundred self-sufficient pod-pilots in every solar system is a natural antigen to piracy, bullying, oppression of any kind.
Freespace is an emergent system that will occur naturally when enough individuals in any particular area subscribe sufficiently to its notions.
Goodnight.
|
Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 19:40:00 -
[8]
You also fail to take into account the new state of the post human existance. Where as once, you needed to defend those that can not defend themselves because once they die they can no longer learn. Now that is no longer the case. There is no need to defend the new corporations, because they can not be killed off, they can just learn. In fact, by defending them you prevent the from learning, so in the long run you are doing them more harm than good.
Support and co-operation is one thing and in everyones own best interest. Protection is to enslave. --------------------------------------------
Join Now |
Vendrin
Caldari APEX Unlimited
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 20:57:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Coeleth
You would have to consider the motivation for the pirate hunter corporation. If pirate hunting is their income, then we would not be concerned, or if they do it for sport. If they hunt pirates with the intention of policing an area of space, then that brings up a yellow flag. Firstly, who are they to impress their notion of justice upon anyone else, pirate or pacifist?
And yet Star Fraction has no problem with impressing their notions on others. _____________________________________
APEX Unlimited is recruiting. Join channel APEXCOM for information! |
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 21:16:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Vendrin
And yet Star Fraction has no problem with impressing their notions on others.
Time to stamp on this canard.
There is not a single person who has been forced to agree to the Star Fraction ideology. Not one.
Fighting to stop people from spreading repressive ideologies is not the same thing as forcing people to accept our ideology.
The Cosmopolite
The Star Fraction Recruitment |
|
Vendrin
Caldari APEX Unlimited
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 21:36:00 -
[11]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Originally by: Vendrin
And yet Star Fraction has no problem with impressing their notions on others.
Time to stamp on this canard.
There is not a single person who has been forced to agree to the Star Fraction ideology. Not one.
Fighting to stop people from spreading repressive ideologies is not the same thing as forcing people to accept our ideology.
The Cosmopolite
The Directive never attempted to force pirates to agree with State Ideology. We just fought pirates to stop them from spreading piracy.
And if you reply that we were forcing Caldari Law on them, then it is equally true that you force your ideals on others by attacking those who stand for ideals that are against your own. _____________________________________
APEX Unlimited is recruiting. Join channel APEXCOM for information! |
Se'la Rox
Caldari Contempo Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 21:54:00 -
[12]
Thankyou for the responses. They've been enlightening.
As for the weak vs strong argument (which overlaps considerably on the pirate question), I would have thought that those who are unable to defend themselves against more powerful individuals or organisations would find themselves permanently subservient to them, unless they somehow make a breakthrough of epic proportions?
If I get this right (please correct me if I'm wrong):
Under the free (for want of a better term) society, there are by definition no weak pilots, because those that are weak will eventually become strong on the basis of being able to learn, build and grow to become strong themselves?
My concern is that this leaves the "strong" in an unparalleled position to exploit the "weak" (should the strong wish it), to the point where the weak are not much better than slaves themselves. Which is the very situation that The Star Fraction appears to want to prevent at all costs. A situation such as this would be a disaster for everyone concerned.
It is this possibility that worries me above all else.
|
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 22:00:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Vendrin
The Directive never attempted to force pirates to agree with State Ideology. We just fought pirates to stop them from spreading piracy.
We have not claimed that and whether the Kimotoro Directive was an anti-pirate organisation or not was never a key concern of the Star Fraction.
So your point is moot.
I repeat, we have never forced anyone to adopt our ideology and you will never find a case where we have done so.
I say again, fighting those who spread and support regressive ideologies is not forcing our ideology on those people.
The Cosmopolite
The Star Fraction Recruitment |
Devilish Ledoux
Caldari Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.25 23:13:00 -
[14]
The Cosmopolite has pointed out something that I feel is a very common misconception many pilots have about Star Fraction. Star Fraction does not fight a war to change the minds of organizations with ideals that oppose our own. Instead, Star Fraction Free Captains fight to discourage other individuals from becoming infected by the ideals of our enemies.
I do not expect that the minds of those we fight will be changed by our actions (although it does happen.) However, those who were formerly protected/restrained by those we fight will (hopefully) have an opportunity to stand on their own and take responsibility for their own lives.
Of course, another desirable effect is that the influence and prestige of our enemies and their regressive ideals are diminished.
So, in short: Star Fraction doesn't fight someone to change their minds. We fight them so that others will be free to make up their own minds, free of regressive influence.
Bear in mind that this isn't an official statement, but I'm fairly confident that I'm restating Star Fraction's position accurately. _
Do Unto Others. |
Takakura Hirohito
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 00:15:00 -
[15]
Thank you for your replies Jasmine it has helped me understand the Star Fraction. I will retract my earlier complaint that you are hypocritical and acknowledge you do embrace some of the concepts of free space I recognize. At first I was uncertain but your explanation about your activities with Black Rabbits show you are not engaging in piracy yourself. I think all who are not pirates should oppose pirates so we differ in that belief but I share more in common with Star Fraction and free space than any other entity. I believe in the the concept of the free spirit. I am writing a doctrine I subscribe to speaking about this that I will publish when done. In many ways the free spirit doctrine is very similar to the free space agenda of the Star Fraction but in other ways it is not. I see much opportunity to learn though and share experiences in free space thus I welcome your comments when I post the doctrine. I believe you to be seeking a better life for all and I was unjustly abrupt with my criticisms. The concept of the free spirit is dear in my heart and I hold it above all others in my quest for contentment and peace.
Taki
|
Gralgathor
Caldari APEX Unlimited
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 09:40:00 -
[16]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite I say again, fighting those who spread and support regressive ideologies is not forcing our ideology on those people.
It is, actually. You base your fight against 'regressive ideologies' in the assumption that your own ideology is superior and the 'repressive' ideology inferior. While not actively forcing people to swallow your doctrine, you still take an aggressive stance. Sort of passive-aggressive coercion, except it's not so passive when you blow up ships. -------
|
Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 09:55:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Se'la Rox Thankyou for the responses. They've been enlightening.
As for the weak vs strong argument (which overlaps considerably on the pirate question), I would have thought that those who are unable to defend themselves against more powerful individuals or organisations would find themselves permanently subservient to them, unless they somehow make a breakthrough of epic proportions?
If I get this right (please correct me if I'm wrong):
Under the free (for want of a better term) society, there are by definition no weak pilots, because those that are weak will eventually become strong on the basis of being able to learn, build and grow to become strong themselves?
My concern is that this leaves the "strong" in an unparalleled position to exploit the "weak" (should the strong wish it), to the point where the weak are not much better than slaves themselves. Which is the very situation that The Star Fraction appears to want to prevent at all costs. A situation such as this would be a disaster for everyone concerned.
It is this possibility that worries me above all else.
I see your concern, but can only assure you it is not the case. You have no reason to take my word for it, so I can only offer you my own experiences to illustrate my belief.
I have been a pod pilot for 1 year and a little over 1 month now. I Joined JF 1 year and 1 week ago. At that time JF was fighting in the pure blind region of 0.0, and soon after they moved down to curse. So, as a new pilot who could barely fly a frigate, I threw myself hip deep into those 0.0 regions, the strongholds of the sorts of people you fear would dominate the ôweakö. Never, since joining JF, have I bent a knee to anyone. Never have the greatest of 0.0 alliances been able to prevent me going were I will. TheyÆve made it damn inconvenient to go to certain places, and sometimes it has take multiple attempts to get there, but always I have got there. Be that the heart of BoB, RA, V, IRON or anyother allianceÆs ôclaimedö space, it can be done, as the concept of owning space is base idiocy and no one can prevent you going where you have a will to do so.
You may not take my word for it when I assure you that your fears are ungrounded, but be assured that each and ever SF pilot stands as an example to you that the ôstrongö can not dominate the weak unless they allow them to.
Vendrin û KD and the like were not shot at because they were forcing their beliefs on the pirates, but because they were propagating the ideal of dependency on the ôstateö and anti pirate organisations. As I have said, when you do this, you cause more harm than good. Defend a man and he is safe until you leave. Teach a man to defend himself and he is safe for his entire life. --------------------------------------------
Join Now |
Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 09:58:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Gralgathor
Originally by: The Cosmopolite I say again, fighting those who spread and support regressive ideologies is not forcing our ideology on those people.
It is, actually. You base your fight against 'regressive ideologies' in the assumption that your own ideology is superior and the 'repressive' ideology inferior. While not actively forcing people to swallow your doctrine, you still take an aggressive stance. Sort of passive-aggressive coercion, except it's not so passive when you blow up ships.
If you stop a man from shouting in the woods, do you force him to listen to the birds sing? --------------------------------------------
Join Now |
Darina Rea
Harvest System
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 14:28:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Sable Schroedinger
Originally by: Gralgathor
Originally by: The Cosmopolite I say again, fighting those who spread and support regressive ideologies is not forcing our ideology on those people.
It is, actually. You base your fight against 'regressive ideologies' in the assumption that your own ideology is superior and the 'repressive' ideology inferior. While not actively forcing people to swallow your doctrine, you still take an aggressive stance. Sort of passive-aggressive coercion, except it's not so passive when you blow up ships.
If you stop a man from shouting in the woods, do you force him to listen to the birds sing?
If you burn down the wood around him there aren't any birds to listen to. _________
Time is on our side. |
Mebrithiel Ju'wien
Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 14:41:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Darina Rea If you burn down the wood around him there aren't any birds to listen to.
I like you; you're sweet! Can I keep you?
www.eve-online.com/evetv |
|
Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.26 15:08:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Darina Rea
If you stop a man from shouting in the woods, do you force him to listen to the birds sing?
If you burn down the wood around him there aren't any birds to listen to.
Unfortunately, this is the point that seems to be missed at every turn. to the point that we can only assume that people are ignoring it on purpose, solely to justify their own prejudice against us. Its why so many of our posts become so short tempered and aloof.
As has been said many times before, SF practices a strict NRDS (Not Red Don't Shoot) policy. This means that we only fire on those that have first fired on us, or those specifically set to red due to projecting the old ideas of empire etc (shouting). Therefore, we never lay a finger on anyone else (the birds or the forrest). Now the wolves may be a bit braver as there is less shouting so may hunt the birds a little. But that will last only so long as the birds let them, because they can easily fly out of reach (defeat) the wolves. --------------------------------------------
Join Now |
Skipp Alfrothul
|
Posted - 2007.01.27 09:49:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Sable Schroedinger You also fail to take into account the new state of the post human existance.
I am sorry, but having read some of your posts I still fail to understand what you mean by 'post-human' existence. How are you more or less of a human then anyone else in the cluster? What defines a post-human and separates her from a base human? From an Amarran Heir with his body full of implants that prolong his life? A Serpentis client with his body full of boosters? A Khanid cyberknight? A True Slave? A Jovian?
|
Khavi Vetali
Team Americas Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.27 21:06:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Skipp Alfrothul
Originally by: Sable Schroedinger You also fail to take into account the new state of the post human existance.
I am sorry, but having read some of your posts I still fail to understand what you mean by 'post-human' existence. How are you more or less of a human then anyone else in the cluster? What defines a post-human and separates her from a base human? From an Amarran Heir with his body full of implants that prolong his life? A Serpentis client with his body full of boosters? A Khanid cyberknight? A True Slave? A Jovian?
For having so many questions you sure aren't looking that hard for answers. Tsk, quit being lazy. Knowledge is so much more rewarding when you don't have someone spoon feeding it to you.
Take it upon yourself to search through some of the current threads concerning the Fraction on Galnet, and you'll more than likely find the answer to these questions. You may not agree with the answers but at least make an attempt to find them.
|
Skipp Alfrothul
|
Posted - 2007.01.27 22:02:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Khavi Vetali For having so many questions you sure aren't looking that hard for answers. Tsk, quit being lazy. Knowledge is so much more rewarding when you don't have someone spoon feeding it to you.
You are making an assertion based on your subjective opinion. Knowledge is knowledge, how one acquires it makes it more or less rewarding only if method of acquisition matches or counters the seeker's moral code. This particular mode of acquisition is neutral to me.
Originally by: Khavi Vetali Take it upon yourself to search through some of the current threads concerning the Fraction on Galnet, and you'll more than likely find the answer to these questions. You may not agree with the answers but at least make an attempt to find them.
I did. I also read some of the older threads, they did not answer my questions. Its entirely possible I missed a vital one, this forum is not very well indexed and this research is not important enough to me to spend that much time on. In short, why would I spend my valuable time looking for some obscure thread when instead I can ask and receive an explanation from the people whose interpretation of the concept is of interest to me. It also provides them with grounds to restate a point of their ideology for the benefit of the audience that may also be unaware of earlier threads and I'm assuming aren't looking for them either.
Originally by: Khavi Vetali Edit:: And the fact that I've just seen you replying in a Galnet thread where posthumanism is explained by Fractionalists leads me to think that not only are you lazy, but blind as well. Or perhaps suffering from "selective" vision or interpretation brought on by overindulgence in life's finer distractions
Its explained there? Truly? The explanations on that thread, and others I found, are so vague as to be meaningless. If it does answer the questions I raised here, you may want to point out to me how. I'm rather slow in my old age. The truth is, concepts have exact meanings. What is exact meaning of post human? What is exact meaning of baseline human? What is your understanding of these concepts and will it match understanding of the Star Fraction should they ever choose to reply to me here?
P.S. You may also note that the post you are responding to was made about ten hours before I started corresponding with The Cosmopolite on the other thread. In fact it predates the existence of that other thread by about three hours. My selective blindness must be contagious: it seems to have cost you your ability to read timestamps.
|
Nekumi
Caldari Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.27 22:13:00 -
[25]
In the simplest possible terms, a post human is the next step in human evolution.
|
Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.27 22:17:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Sable Schroedinger on 27/01/2007 22:13:59 In this particular context, it refers the near immortality afforded to Pod Pilots through cloning.
edit for clarity --------------------------------------------
Join Now |
Skipp Alfrothul
Minmatar Alfrothul clan
|
Posted - 2007.01.27 23:29:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Sable Schroedinger Edited by: Sable Schroedinger on 27/01/2007 22:14:09 In this particular context, it refers the near immortality afforded to Pod Pilots through cloning.
This is the source of my confusion, and for the record in response to your post on the other thread I have been posting on, I am not trying to trap you into any sort of logic trap or sling mud. I honestly have trouble understanding your ideas and I very much want to. Your other posts do not answer my questions as they do not go into the logical implications of what you say.
Now, to your response. Why is near immortality of pod pilots a next step in human evolution? What about other people who have clones? They too are nearly immortal and by virtue of great resources at their disposal are capable of affecting great change. Do they meet your criteria for being a next step in human evolution? Or is the ability to pilot a starship from a pod is a requirement as well?
|
Coeleth
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.01.27 23:34:00 -
[28]
Of course post-humanism isn't limited to pod-pilots. Cloning is ushering in a new age in human development.
However, pod-pilots are more than simply immortal. Bleeding edge technology extends their senses across millions of kilometres of space, places at the disposal of a thought the ability to walk the stars and unleash hell-fire from their ships' weapon systems and permits instantaneous communication to one and many, hundreds of light years in an instant.
All this makes the pod-pilot; akin to the legends and fantasies of ages past.
|
Skipp Alfrothul
Minmatar Alfrothul clan
|
Posted - 2007.01.27 23:46:00 -
[29]
I think I understand what you mean by the concept of post-human and distinction between it and a pod captain now. Thank you.
|
Doktor Quick
|
Posted - 2007.01.28 09:20:00 -
[30]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
I repeat, we have never forced anyone to adopt our ideology and you will never find a case where we have done so.
I say again, fighting those who spread and support regressive ideologies is not forcing our ideology on those people.
The Cosmopolite
No you didn't force anyone to adopt your Ideology overtly but the fact is that actions speak louder than words. You've learned that lesson well and you use the principle to good effect, you don't have to say what you want, your actions speak for you, your violent persecution of those who don't agree with you and have the temerity to actually say so sends a clear message: Agree with us or take no stand, or else.
The thing is you're not really giving the option of disagreeing with you, your whole Ideology is centered around self interest, by not anyone who doesn't disagree with you directly or who doesn't oppose you openly is in fact doing exactly what you want them to.
I applaud your masterful use of semantics and oppression you've created an argument in which you can actually say one thing mean another and not have to lie to do it. You're still not going to win any friends with this approach though, unless you count extremists and pirates whoes ruthless criminal agenda your actions facilitate quite nicely.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |