Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Seriphyn Inhonores
Eleutherian Guard Villore Accords
77
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 02:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
A while ago, there was a story of an extremely remote village on a backwater archipelago on a forgotten Federation world. It was inhabited by an indigenous population that found itself at the brunt of religious violence from another indigenous ethnic group.
The village became known to the Federation only after they reported this incident to higher authorities. Local fighting was problematic, so the Federation Army was sent as a peacekeeping force.
However, the village elders decried this as illegal and unwelcome. Having legally-recognized rights in the Federal Charter, they demanded the Army leave. So they did, and the next day, the rival ethnic group launches an offensive on the village and massacres them, burning the entire settlement to the ground.
What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death? |
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
442
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 02:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
There's a severe lack of subtlety in this story, but I'll entertain your query.
Those people had the right to choose, granted they chose poorly in hindsight but it was their choice. However while the Federation cannot occupy the village itself, there was no reason it couldn't take position outside of the perimeter, and repel any would be hostiles.
Where there's a will there's a way, respect for the Village's self autonomy would be replied with respect for the Peacekeepers from the locals for their continuing service while adhering to agreements.
In time that would develop stronger ties and co-operation. Bullrushing in because "We know what's best for you" will never result in a positive outcome. Time and patience cannot be underestimated. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Mekhana
Black Knight Legion
419
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 02:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
Freedom of religion is a right. However, we should not hold fanatics and zealots in the same regard.
Also ethnic violence? That bothers me the most.
Either way we can consider their backwater days long gone. They are probably being watched now by more government organizations than the amount of ships I own.
|
Boma Airaken
Seekers of a Silent Paradise
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 05:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
What would I do as a Gallentean? Smoke dope and rap. |
Tablaren
Knights of Kador
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 05:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
This is simple, they are murderers. Murderers need to be punished... yet they also deserve a chance to redeem their sins.
.........I sell their location and the information that the military isnt there to a slave trader and then go buy my wife something shiny. |
Uraniae Fehrnah
Viziam Amarr Empire
67
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 07:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
Whatever point you might be trying to make by retelling the story and asking your question is, in a word, irrelevant. Could the soldiers have stayed, against the villager's wishes? Absolutely. Could they have then ended up preventing the violence? Possibly. Could they have gotten caught up in the violence themselves, costing the lives of the soldiers and the aggressors? Possibly. Would people in the Federation find reason to protest regardless? Absolutely.
Now, don't go getting defensive just yet. I'm not specifically criticizing the Federation or it's people, merely trying to point out a few rather simple and ancient facts about the human condition. Simply put, when it comes to people dealing with other people, there are never any "perfect" solutions. Hindsight is much clearer than foresight. No conventional system of governance or order will ever be free of the periodic necessity of having to choose between a bad choice and another bad choice.
As for the question of what I would do?
Well, that's a horribly imprecise question with very little background information to go on. I'm a capsuleer, and as such my ability to intervene in a planetary affair is...quite limited. I could jokingly say I'll simply drop an extraction and factory complex on both villages from orbit, and wonder why there are trace amounts of biomass showing up with the resources I'm collecting. But you're not looking for a joking answer are you?
So my serious answer will have to be, nothing. These two villages made their choices and now they will live or die with them. As long as people have the ability to chose, that ability will be used to chose to harm people. |
Jev North
Ghost Festival Naraka.
40
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 09:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
As written, there's little question that withdrawing the peacekeeping forces was the correct decision. Autonomy isn't just a feel-good word; it includes the freedom to make bad, wrong decisions that any sane person would disagree with. And, naturally, to carry the consequences of them.
The more interesting story would be the one where the village elders can't quite make up their minds, half the village welcomes the notion of intervention, and the other half is stockpiling weapons and making plans to bomb the Gallente embassy. Meanwhile the invaders are split into seventeen different factions with different aims and motives and plans, running the gamut from howling for blood to actively trying to prevent these silly invasion plans. And all of the major actors in the story have a long, bad history with everybody else, with plenty of semi-legitimate grievances to pick and choose from.
Now that's beginning to approach the complexity of real-world situations. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
607
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 11:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
That was there choice, we offered help, they reject it and then came consequences of that decission. |
TomHorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 11:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
Keep out Seriphyn , thats my advice. You cant police the whole universe. There is always going to be tyrants , religious and ethnic violence amongst some groups. Look after yourself and your important allies.
Its tough but sometimes you got to let people sort things out for themselves. |
Vechtor
DuPont Enterprises Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 13:05:00 -
[10] - Quote
Oh, I see where you are trying to lead us. But let us first correctly contextualize things:
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:A while ago, there was a story of an extremely remote village on a backwater archipelago on a forgotten Federation world. It was inhabited by an indigenous population that found itself at the brunt of religious violence from another indigenous ethnic group.
Intaki is far from being an extremely remote village on a backwater archipelago on a forgotten Federation world. Intaki is just 2 jump gates distance from Stacmon, a high level security system where even FDU has a station that serves many of the Federation organizations as a Trade Hub and Industrial Complex. Intaki is far from being just a bunch of indians. On the contrary, itGÇÖs a very large ethnic group inside the Federation. Your comparison, for the purpose you were trying to achieve, between Intaki and a remote village of indians in a remote Federation planet is at the very least laughable.
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote: The village became known to the Federation only after they reported this incident to higher authorities. Local fighting was problematic, so the Federation Army was sent as a peacekeeping force.
Intaki, differently than that, helped to FORGE this Federation...
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote: However, the village elders decried this as illegal and unwelcome. Having legally-recognized rights in the Federal Charter, they demanded the Army leave. So they did, and the next day, the rival ethnic group launches an offensive on the village and massacres them, burning the entire settlement to the ground.
What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death?
Yes, you have the right to deal with things in your own residence. Outside of it, you have to act accordingly to a greater force that was instituted for that matter. The space around Intaki and other Placid systems is Federation responsibility. If you feel responsible to fight for "freedom" against Caldari invasion in this space, you have an implicit responsibility to fight against oppression from any other group in this same area.
|
|
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
442
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 13:22:00 -
[11] - Quote
Vechtor wrote:The space around Intaki and other Placid systems is Federation responsibility.
Just to clarify, when you say "Intaki" are you talking about the space around Intaki the planet (thus Intaki the system) or Intaki the System (thus talking about neighbouring systems such as Vey) Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 13:35:00 -
[12] - Quote
You have fetishized free choice.
Look at this. You have a problem with a very clear moral answer (Stop one tribe from slaughtering the other, since you have the power to do so), and the vast majority of the answers in this thread are 'let them kill each other. Free Choice is more important than their lives'.
No, it's not. It's really, really not.
If you have the power to stop a massacre, know it's coming, and yet you do nothing, you are almost as responsible for that massacre as those who planned and enacted it. Your inaction declares your guilt. |
Seriphyn Inhonores
Eleutherian Guard Villore Accords
78
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 13:39:00 -
[13] - Quote
While this situation can be applied to Intaki, the retelling of this event was to highlight a continuing problem within the Federation's borders. So called "Federal interventionism" takes place domestically as well as abroad.
Tiberious Thessalonia has the right of it. The Federation "fetishizes" freedom, yes, but several people don't properly understand what "freedom" means. It has two distinct branches...freedom of and freedom from. Under freedom from, you have the subbranch of autonomy, which is freedom from higher control.
If it's not the Federation's job, is it the job of non-governmental actors within the civil society? Even then, so-called charities and NGOs have been criticized for still projecting Gallentean influence.
It is important to look at matters three-dimensionally and structurally. An eternal debate within the Federation is the merits of interventionism (criticized as colonialism) versus libertarianism (criticized as apathy). You just can't please everyone. |
Mekhana
Black Knight Legion
421
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 13:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
Freedom is a right.
A right is a responsibility.
|
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
442
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 13:51:00 -
[15] - Quote
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:If you have the power to stop a massacre, know it's coming, and yet you do nothing.
You don't have to impede on their rights and wishes to stop the massacre you know. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 13:56:00 -
[16] - Quote
Well, yes, you do. You have to impede the wishes of the one group to massacre the other. You have to impede the 'right' of the people who would rather see you go away than avoid being massacred.
People are capable of making very poor decisions. If they are making one that is against their own wishes, you have two choices.
You can let them make their very poor decision and suffer the consequences of it.
You can stop them from making their very poor decision and instead do the morally right thing.
Taking a libertarian stance, as General Inhonores calls it, is allowing this sample of humanity to choose itself into extinction, and if you could have stopped it, that makes you responsible. |
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
442
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 14:05:00 -
[17] - Quote
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Well, yes, you do. You have to impede the wishes of the one group to massacre the other. You have to impede the 'right' of the people who would rather see you go away than avoid being massacred.
Not necessarily. Why does everything have to result in violence? Since when was diplomacy and negotiation no longer an option? Since when was being a deterrent in a neutral area between the two places not an option?
If one side wishes to then attack the other they find you in their way, that doesn't stop them from carrying on if they want to, just they have to get through you first. They still have the right to do so, as much as you have the right to respond. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Manwe Todako
Disciples of Ston
189
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 14:20:00 -
[18] - Quote
First, I want to thank the author of this thread for titling the thread "What do you DO!" Capsuleers are very good and responding to difficult moral issues with words piled upon words. This situation raises an important issue of religious violence all over our cluster and the millions who are killed, wounded and harmed each month.
We may not reach a consensus about this particular situation, but each of us can DO something to lessen the injustices of violence around us.
1. Reduce or eliminate your own acts of violence as much as possible. When in doubt, restrain. 2. Adopt a child orphaned or abandoned because of violence. Take care of widows who are so because of violence. 3. Work to reform your people's religion with a theology of non-violence. 4. Take as many risks to save lives as you would to take lives.
There is a start to answering the "DO" question. SANKOFA |
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 14:36:00 -
[19] - Quote
Caellach Marellus wrote:Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Well, yes, you do. You have to impede the wishes of the one group to massacre the other. You have to impede the 'right' of the people who would rather see you go away than avoid being massacred. Not necessarily. Why does everything have to result in violence? Since when was diplomacy and negotiation no longer an option? Since when was being a deterrent in a neutral area between the two places not an option? If one side wishes to then attack the other they find you in their way, that doesn't stop them from carrying on if they want to, just they have to get through you first. They still have the right to do so, as much as you have the right to respond.
That fits very much into the 'You have the power to stop it' situation. Sadly, these conditions do not always exist (space enough between the people to situate yourself in, and either side being willing to talk to the other). In cases where they do not, you need to decide at what point you are going to stop and withdraw to allow the massacre to happen, or disregard the wishs of both groups in order to do what's morally right. |
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
442
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 14:46:00 -
[20] - Quote
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Caellach Marellus wrote:Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Well, yes, you do. You have to impede the wishes of the one group to massacre the other. You have to impede the 'right' of the people who would rather see you go away than avoid being massacred. Not necessarily. Why does everything have to result in violence? Since when was diplomacy and negotiation no longer an option? Since when was being a deterrent in a neutral area between the two places not an option? If one side wishes to then attack the other they find you in their way, that doesn't stop them from carrying on if they want to, just they have to get through you first. They still have the right to do so, as much as you have the right to respond. That fits very much into the 'You have the power to stop it' situation. Sadly, these conditions do not always exist (space enough between the people to situate yourself in, and either side being willing to talk to the other). In cases where they do not, you need to decide at what point you are going to stop and withdraw to allow the massacre to happen, or disregard the wishs of both groups in order to do what's morally right.
You can only go so far and do so many things that are within your limitations, regardless of size or position. Unfortunately not every scenario can end in a win. Relocation or interference can be met with outright hostility, till you find yourself at war with the people you tried to protect. Choice must sadly in some cases be respected, but only after all alternatives have been exhausted.
Problem is too few people have the patience to go through all the alternatives and merely resort to the quick easy solution. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
|
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 15:06:00 -
[21] - Quote
Caellach Marellus wrote:Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Caellach Marellus wrote:Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Well, yes, you do. You have to impede the wishes of the one group to massacre the other. You have to impede the 'right' of the people who would rather see you go away than avoid being massacred. Not necessarily. Why does everything have to result in violence? Since when was diplomacy and negotiation no longer an option? Since when was being a deterrent in a neutral area between the two places not an option? If one side wishes to then attack the other they find you in their way, that doesn't stop them from carrying on if they want to, just they have to get through you first. They still have the right to do so, as much as you have the right to respond. That fits very much into the 'You have the power to stop it' situation. Sadly, these conditions do not always exist (space enough between the people to situate yourself in, and either side being willing to talk to the other). In cases where they do not, you need to decide at what point you are going to stop and withdraw to allow the massacre to happen, or disregard the wishs of both groups in order to do what's morally right. You can only go so far and do so many things that are within your limitations, regardless of size or position. Unfortunately not every scenario can end in a win. Relocation or interference can be met with outright hostility, till you find yourself at war with the people you tried to protect. Choice must sadly in some cases be respected, but only after all alternatives have been exhausted. Problem is too few people have the patience to go through all the alternatives and merely resort to the quick easy solution.
It's in the place where you have to choose one hand or the other where you see what is more important to a person. Of course other avenues should be exhausted, but when it comes down to these peoples lives and their free will, you have chosen their free will as the more important factor, and they have ended up dead. |
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
442
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 15:12:00 -
[22] - Quote
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:It's in the place where you have to choose one hand or the other where you see what is more important to a person. Of course other avenues should be exhausted, but when it comes down to these peoples lives and their free will, you have chosen their free will as the more important factor, and they have ended up dead.
You only know that in hindsight. As I said not every scenario can end in a win. Should you choose to deny their free will they may turn against you and in self defence you're forced to kill them, and they have ended up dead anyway. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Jev North
Ghost Festival Naraka.
41
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 15:25:00 -
[23] - Quote
Well, speaking of the failure of Pilot Inhonores' scenario to touch on real-world situations..
If we want to drag Nation philosophy into this, and it tends to be dragged in kicking and screaming wherever a certain word starting with "m" and ending in "orality" comes up, said scenario would need a few more adaptations.. hm. How about the aggressors not wanting to kill the villagers, but wanting to drag them off for slave labor instead. But it's very safe slave labor, nice and deep in the bowels of a mine somewhere, and the capturees are on a permanent opiate IV, so they'll be docile and basically burbling with enjoyment the whole time. |
Esan Vartesa
Samarkand Financial
167
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 15:44:00 -
[24] - Quote
Ah, how typically Gallentean.
The truth is that you're just indulging in self-adulation. You are the party in a position of power in this scenario. You get to make the life and death decisions. So, the ONLY answer is to do what serves YOU best, not what's best for the backward little peasants on the surface.
This little intellectual dance you're doing here is still about the Federation, about who you want to pretend to be, and how you want others to perceive you.
The fact that you don't actually know exposes just how weak your civilization really is. |
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 15:45:00 -
[25] - Quote
Caellach Marellus wrote:Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:It's in the place where you have to choose one hand or the other where you see what is more important to a person. Of course other avenues should be exhausted, but when it comes down to these peoples lives and their free will, you have chosen their free will as the more important factor, and they have ended up dead. You only know that in hindsight. As I said not every scenario can end in a win. Should you choose to deny their free will they may turn against you and in self defence you're forced to kill them, and they have ended up dead anyway.
We are starting to stray away from the original thought experiment that Mssr. Inhonores proposed.
Pretend all other options have been exhausted. You have already put yourself between the two tribes, and this has failed. The aggressor tribe is not interested in diplomacy, and wants only to destroy the defender tribe. The defenders, in no uncertain terms, have told you to leave.
Do you follow the cause of free will, let one side choose to slaughter while the other side chooses to be slaughtered, or do you intervene against the wishes of both, and save the lives of the defender tribe, even if they hate you for it?
Thats the limits of the thought experiment. The idea is to make you decide between two bad positions. You have already lost, and you are now asked to choose how you will lose. |
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
442
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 15:56:00 -
[26] - Quote
I think at this point we're also changing the scenario. For clarification have the Elders asked you to leave the village or the entire planet?
Because you can act to prevent it without upsetting the former, and the latter is unreasonable that they make demands beyond their jurisdiction.
Ah the joy of hypothetical scenarios.
Edit:
Esan Vartesa wrote:Ah, how typically Gallentean.
The truth is that you're just indulging in self-adulation. You are the party in a position of power in this scenario. You get to make the life and death decisions. So, the ONLY answer is to do what serves YOU best, not what's best for the backward little peasants on the surface.
With power comes responsibility, if you can't see beyond your own interests then that's your prerogative to serve yourself. Not everyone is like you though. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 16:13:00 -
[27] - Quote
Work within the bounds of what is clearly intended. The situation has been set out. The choice has to be made. Make the choice, or don't get involved in the thought exercise? |
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
442
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 16:22:00 -
[28] - Quote
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Work within the bounds of what is clearly intended. The situation has been set out. The choice has to be made. Make the choice, or don't get involved in the thought exercise?
I think you're misunderstanding the parameters, hence why I would like clarification from the General as to the exact specifications. Right now we're playing guesswork.
From what I understood it the Peacekeepers are not welcome in the village. Anything they do outside of there is their own choice to make and not subject to criticism from the locals. From your understanding they're not welcome on the planet and any interference of any kid is going to offend.
Two very very different situations. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 16:24:00 -
[29] - Quote
Caellach Marellus wrote:Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Work within the bounds of what is clearly intended. The situation has been set out. The choice has to be made. Make the choice, or don't get involved in the thought exercise? I think you're misunderstanding the parameters, hence why I would like clarification from the General as to the exact specifications. Right now we're playing guesswork. From what I understood it the Peacekeepers are not welcome in the village. Anything they do outside of there is their own choice to make and not subject to criticism from the locals. From your understanding they're not welcome on the planet and any interference of any kid is going to offend. Two very very different situations.
The thought experiment is itself in the choice, Caellach. It isn't asking 'How could this have been avoided', it's 'Now that you have this awful choice to make, which do you pick'. |
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
442
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 16:36:00 -
[30] - Quote
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Caellach Marellus wrote:Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Work within the bounds of what is clearly intended. The situation has been set out. The choice has to be made. Make the choice, or don't get involved in the thought exercise? I think you're misunderstanding the parameters, hence why I would like clarification from the General as to the exact specifications. Right now we're playing guesswork. From what I understood it the Peacekeepers are not welcome in the village. Anything they do outside of there is their own choice to make and not subject to criticism from the locals. From your understanding they're not welcome on the planet and any interference of any kid is going to offend. Two very very different situations. The thought experiment is itself in the choice, Caellach. It isn't asking 'How could this have been avoided', it's 'Now that you have this awful choice to make, which do you pick'.
So basically you're throwing the entire scenario out of the window and asking me what I'd choose in a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." scenario instead? Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
|
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 16:44:00 -
[31] - Quote
Caellach Marellus wrote: So basically you're throwing the entire scenario out of the window and asking me what I'd choose in a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." scenario instead?
I'm saying that's what you were presented with. Hes asking you a very specific question at the end of the OP. |
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
442
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 16:47:00 -
[32] - Quote
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Caellach Marellus wrote: So basically you're throwing the entire scenario out of the window and asking me what I'd choose in a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." scenario instead?
I'm saying that's what you were presented with. Hes asking you a very specific question at the end of the OP.
I disagree with your interpretation. I believe there are plenty of options in the original scenario and that you can be lead to a positive outcome. Your recent posts have changed said scenario and asked me what I'd do in your alternative no win hypothesis. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 17:09:00 -
[33] - Quote
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:A while ago, there was a story of an extremely remote village on a backwater archipelago on a forgotten Federation world. It was inhabited by an indigenous population that found itself at the brunt of religious violence from another indigenous ethnic group.
The village became known to the Federation only after they reported this incident to higher authorities. Local fighting was problematic, so the Federation Army was sent as a peacekeeping force.
However, the village elders decried this as illegal and unwelcome. Having legally-recognized rights in the Federal Charter, they demanded the Army leave. So they did, and the next day, the rival ethnic group launches an offensive on the village and massacres them, burning the entire settlement to the ground.
What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death?
I am posting this again so that you can read it, with the relevant bit bolded. |
Drasden
Torash Family Holdings
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 17:10:00 -
[34] - Quote
When the village elders say they don't want the army there, I smile and nod. Then have them incarcerated until everything blows over.
My next step is to send a diplomatic party to the other village, preferably escorted by at least one piece of machinery capable of leveling the entire village within 24 hours. I have the diplomats make it very clear that we want peace, but aren't going to screw around. Doubtless an agreement will be reached, but I will maintain some military presence in both villages regardless until it is clear they intend to follow it.
If they decide to break that agreement, I launch and record an orbital bombardment of the aggressor village.
The next time I am called to settle a dispute between two warring villages, I show them the video. |
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
443
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 17:15:00 -
[35] - Quote
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death? I am posting this again so that you can read it, with the relevant bit bolded.
So we go into the incompetence of the Commander in charge of the Peacekeepers who didn't use all options available to him? I thought the point of this discussion was "What could have been done differently" not "Which do you prefer, to be shot in the face or shot in the back of the head?" Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 17:16:00 -
[36] - Quote
Drasden wrote:When the village elders say they don't want the army there, I smile and nod. Then have them incarcerated until everything blows over.
My next step is to send a diplomatic party to the other village, preferably escorted by at least one piece of machinery capable of leveling the entire village within 24 hours. I have the diplomats make it very clear that we want peace, but aren't going to screw around. Doubtless an agreement will be reached, but I will maintain some military presence in both villages regardless until it is clear they intend to follow it.
If they decide to break that agreement, I launch and record an orbital bombardment of the aggressor village.
The next time I am called to settle a dispute between two warring villages, I show them the video.
See, this guy? He made a choice. |
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 17:17:00 -
[37] - Quote
Caellach Marellus wrote:Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death? I am posting this again so that you can read it, with the relevant bit bolded. So we go into the incompetence of the Commander in charge of the Peacekeepers who didn't use all options available to him? I thought the point of this discussion was "What could have been done differently" not "Which do you prefer, to be shot in the face or shot in the back of the head?"
It's very clearly "What do you prefer? Intervening even where you aren't wanted, or letting people handle their own affairs unmolested even if the choice they would make is disastrous." |
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
443
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 17:22:00 -
[38] - Quote
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Caellach Marellus wrote:Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death? I am posting this again so that you can read it, with the relevant bit bolded. So we go into the incompetence of the Commander in charge of the Peacekeepers who didn't use all options available to him? I thought the point of this discussion was "What could have been done differently" not "Which do you prefer, to be shot in the face or shot in the back of the head?" It's very clearly "What do you prefer? Intervening even where you aren't wanted, or letting people handle their own affairs unmolested even if the choice they would make is disastrous."
My understanding of the hypothetical scenario was that you were made unwelcome in the village you were trying to protect, anything you do outside of the village's jurisdiction is not for them to debate, it's not their area you're operating in anymore.
To which case see my reply much earlier on in this discussion.
If you're telling me one village has complete jurisdiction over the planet? Well apart from being somewhat unrealistic (if they had jurisdiction they wouldn't be under threat from a single rival) and the fact you have to act without the benefit of hindsight the choice is simple. You already have an agreement and they ask you to adhere to it, there's no further debate in that position. But I still find the fact one village has the run of an entire planet to be unlikely. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Ares Renton
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
19
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 18:13:00 -
[39] - Quote
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:A while ago, there was a story of an extremely remote village on a backwater archipelago on a forgotten Federation world. It was inhabited by an indigenous population that found itself at the brunt of religious violence from another indigenous ethnic group.
The village became known to the Federation only after they reported this incident to higher authorities. Local fighting was problematic, so the Federation Army was sent as a peacekeeping force.
However, the village elders decried this as illegal and unwelcome. Having legally-recognized rights in the Federal Charter, they demanded the Army leave. So they did, and the next day, the rival ethnic group launches an offensive on the village and massacres them, burning the entire settlement to the ground.
What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death?
Sounds like your society is about to collapse. Civil wars are going on and your government isn't even powerful enough to intervene. |
Lyn Farel
Extropian Technologies
241
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:07:00 -
[40] - Quote
That kind of decision depends on what you put the emphasis on. Most of them are a specific trait in the equation.
Here is a non exhaustive list of what I consider essential :
- Quantitative mass equality : how many lives will you save and how many will you condemn by getting involved in the conflict ? The base theory here is that any life is equal in value to another one.
- Qualitative elitist disparity : If all lives are not equal and some are more important than others, which decision will protect the highest coefficient/average ?
- Stability and balance : what will cost you the most in terms of stability and social upheaval between the involvement in the conflict against the invading Nation and the decision to remain out of it ?
- Ethical paradoxes : if the Federation defends free will, will you sacrifice your ideals about free will and favor your ideals about justice, or will you do the opposite ? In either case, a part of your ideals are lost.
Eventually though, all these general considerations do not last well in specific cases and scenarios, which are all quite unique and require deeper analysises.
Note : involving in the conflict does not necessarily mean to defend the invaded nation, but this will hold a high probability for said nation to be invaded nevertheless. |
|
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:11:00 -
[41] - Quote
Caellach Marellus wrote:Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Caellach Marellus wrote:Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death? I am posting this again so that you can read it, with the relevant bit bolded. So we go into the incompetence of the Commander in charge of the Peacekeepers who didn't use all options available to him? I thought the point of this discussion was "What could have been done differently" not "Which do you prefer, to be shot in the face or shot in the back of the head?" It's very clearly "What do you prefer? Intervening even where you aren't wanted, or letting people handle their own affairs unmolested even if the choice they would make is disastrous." My understanding of the hypothetical scenario was that you were made unwelcome in the village you were trying to protect, anything you do outside of the village's jurisdiction is not for them to debate, it's not their area you're operating in anymore. To which case see my reply much earlier on in this discussion. If you're telling me one village has complete jurisdiction over the planet? Well apart from being somewhat unrealistic (if they had jurisdiction they wouldn't be under threat from a single rival) and the fact you have to act without the benefit of hindsight the choice is simple. You already have an agreement and they ask you to adhere to it, there's no further debate in that position. But I still find the fact one village has the run of an entire planet to be unlikely.
I am saying that the question has never been about "What would you do to prevent this awful situation" but "How would you handle this awful situation as it occured". Im not digging into insane hypotheticals I cant know anything about without asking Seriphyn extra questions, Im going based off the information he has provided and the question he asked.
|
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
443
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:21:00 -
[42] - Quote
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
I am saying that the question has never been about "What would you do to prevent this awful situation" but "How would you handle this awful situation as it occured". Im not digging into insane hypotheticals I cant know anything about without asking Seriphyn extra questions, Im going based off the information he has provided and the question he asked.
I gave you your answer, whichever way the scenario may be. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:49:00 -
[43] - Quote
Caellach Marellus wrote:Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
I am saying that the question has never been about "What would you do to prevent this awful situation" but "How would you handle this awful situation as it occured". Im not digging into insane hypotheticals I cant know anything about without asking Seriphyn extra questions, Im going based off the information he has provided and the question he asked.
I gave you your answer, whichever way the scenario may be.
non-interventionism, then? |
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
443
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:59:00 -
[44] - Quote
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:Caellach Marellus wrote:Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
I am saying that the question has never been about "What would you do to prevent this awful situation" but "How would you handle this awful situation as it occured". Im not digging into insane hypotheticals I cant know anything about without asking Seriphyn extra questions, Im going based off the information he has provided and the question he asked.
I gave you your answer, whichever way the scenario may be. non-interventionism, then?
Assuming this single village has the legitimate jurisdiction of the entire planet in their chartered agreement. If that's the case then without the gift of hindsight yes I'd leave, and monitor the situation from outside their jurisdiction. It's all I'm allowed to do in this situation.
Furthermore, I'd let them know that should anything happen we'd be a distress call away. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
FeralShadow
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe R.E.P.O.
53
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 22:18:00 -
[45] - Quote
I'd have offered extraction services for any members of the community that didn't feel they were represented by the decision to stay and fight without Federation help. I see no reason that innocent people would have to die because of the poor decisions of deluded "leaders". After taking those with me that wanted to go, I would have left, and those people who didn't want my help would have died anyways, without causing innocent casualties. |
Ava Starfire
Teraa Matar
201
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 02:06:00 -
[46] - Quote
Pretty subtle.
I know where this is coming from, and why the "hypothetical" situation was constructed.
How about if that "village" is not within the Federation, but its own entity, its own sovereign nation, who have repeatedly expressed desires to walk on their own two feet?
Might be closer to the point he is hoping to make. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |