Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Katrina Oniseki on 03 Aug 2012, 14:51
-
As usual, I'd like to put my hand up and wave to the discussion here as someone who has some [what I hope are] fresh and mature ideas about how to hold a discussion about Slavery. As a Caldari who tends to be very respectful of other cultures' oddities and quirks, Kat has a special perspective on slavery - ones she'd be happy to discuss with a slaveholder.
Of course, no arguments or insults need be included!
-
Instead it degenerates down to these two very basic statements.
Person 1 : "Your religion is bad"
person 2 : "HEATHEN!"
re: slavery, much the same is true. slavers either seem to immediately make it about religion, and then revert to statement 1 above. Otherwise, anti-slaver cites information about vitoxin, torture, beatings, threats of physical violence, slaver dogs, etc, and then slaver reverts to "but I don't treat my slaves like that, I'm the BEST SLAVE OWNER EVER." The exception to the rule would be those rare individuals who state instead that yes, they do use those methods to keep their flock in line. As part of the Amarr faith is that pain and punishment is part of process of bringing others into the light of their god, as per their scripture. Then just accept the hate that flows their way as due course from unbelievers.
I made Evelyn (my Khanid slaver) because of the growing number of people that equate 'slave = sex toy', or 'beat them into submission'. Evelyn is is sincerely concerned about her slaves' spritual growth, and she feels that beating someone to death or poisoning them with Vitoxin is no way to bring them to God.
Don't get me wrong, she still punishes her slaves if they step out of line, but she does it when they deserve punishment, not just for the sake of beating people.
-
Logan, that's my point.
The people playing religious character and slavers AS WELL AS the people opposing them can't handle it with maturity. I wasn't pointing in one direction or the other.
I hope you don't mind me interjecting on this topic, but I couldn't help but wonder how an individual might handle the subject of slavery in a mature fashion.
Pro-Freedom: Slavery is wrong. It is barbaric and cruel, and morally reprehensible. Let my people go!
Slaver: Slavery is right because God has tasked us to be the chosen people to spread His Word to all corners of the universe. This is for your own good.
Pro-Freedom: God doesn't exist. It's just an excuse to subjugate other cultures!
This continues ad-nauseum until everyone wishes TonyG would write in a super-weapon that would wipe out both cultures.
In my opinion, the mature thing to do in this situation is recognize that this conflict has gone very far beyond rational understanding and critical analysis to the point where both sides are exchanging ordinance. Freedom fighters have family enslaved in the Empire and have lost close friends in fighting for their freedom, while Imperial Defenders have watched innocent civilians terrorized and close friends killed in defense of their way of life. Expecting either side to react rationally with a cold detachment to the subject is folly, and I find it rather disconcerting that people expect more from freedom fighters/crusaders than vitriol and hate.
Rich Gallentean executives have the privilege of waxing philosophical over appetizers at the 'save the slaves' charity fund drive because they don't have a personal stake in the matter.
-
Gyra,
A fair question, Gyra. I'll try to highlight it clearly.
There's a few problems, really. The primary one being player characters that are "slaves" and attribute all sorts of atrocities to it. "My mother was a sex slave, my cousin was abused physically until he died, our WHOLE FAMILY is on Vitoc, etc, etc." The number of problems with this are astronomical. First, for a capsuleer to be a slave is pretty ridiculous to start with, there's absolutely no way to "hold" a capsuleer in slavery. At best, a capsuleer can be an indentured servant be virtue of owing a debt to someone or if that someone has some way of keeping them there (blackmail, family hostages, etc) but even then it's a workaround, at best.
Second, PF touches upon slave mistreatment and abuse in the Empire (and the Kingdom) but it also makes it quite clear that it's a minority, not a majority and that the Empire actually looks unfavorably on it. Vitoxin is used on less than 10% of total slaves and most of those are ship-crew slaves. Slave abuse seldom happens because if it gets out that a Holder is mistreating their slaves, the constant power struggles between nobles would shift when other nobles brought it to light and caused that Holder to lose favor with the throne and church. The Amarr DO believe in ethics and morality and DO have expectations on how to treat their slaves.
Then you run into the Amarr players that just want to be mustache-twirling evil slavers. The kind who abuse their own "slaves," or constantly make it a point to reference beating, torturing or otherwise harming their "slaves."
When you combine the two, you end up with this overwhelming impression in the RP bloc that the Amarr are immoral, unethical, slaving, evil bastards which doesn't match the PF at all.
Thus, when a conversation happens, it's the constant back and forth spew of bile that we've all grown to know and love instead of anything even resembling what the conversation would more likely look like. (A large part of this comes from our own OOC viewpoints on the detestable nature of slavery and carrying that over into our characters, as well).
The conversation that you referenced is a mature conversation compared to normal filth that gets broadcast over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
-
Hmm.
To be honest, (and I hope I don't offend anyone in saying this!) I'm a little hesitant to really engage in any serious Amarr/Minmatar roleplay, and the slavery thing is probably the prime reason. It just seems to completely dominate it as the centerpiece. Like, to start with, I'm not super keen on the subject just from an out-of-character perspective, in that it's something I've seen explored to heck and back in other settings and have kinda had my fill of. (And wasn't that interested in to begin with.) This wouldn't be a problem, on it's own. But it sometimes seems like it's all the roleplay for those two sides are about.
Like, to give an example, I've been in one-on-one RPs with about 4 Amarrian RPers with Gwen, and three out of four of those had them wanting to attempt to enslave her, out of which only one mailed me in advance to ask if I was interested in pursuing the plot thread. Now, I wouldn't mind something like that happening on occasion, since RP obviously becomes dull if nothing unexpected ever happens on trips to procrastinate over drinks.
But more then half the time? That's a level beyond. There's a point where it ceases to be a feature for RP with that group and becomes THE feature. And though it's been more subtle in Gwens dialogues with Minmatar, the subject does seem to tend towards slavery and linger there, too, for one reason or another. It's like a themantic whirlpool that tries to pull you in if you approach someone involved in it, sometimes! It's a little scary. And I already find myself running out of doors to open with it.
I like the Caldari/Gallente conflict better (and find it easier to become invested in people invested in it) because it seems to be more a battle of ideals. A temperate war with abstract motivations and variable levels of involement that doesn't really need to have a proper, final revolution, so long as it continues to simmer on in interesting manner. But I feel like the Amarr/Minmatar conflict is, in the inverse, so hot that it seems to define those two factions, which in turn makes it a bit more dissatisfying when no final resolution can ever be reached. I mean, the Minmatar are never going to be all freed, yet neither will the Amarrians manage to enslave them back again. The lore seems to demand anger at the situation, but all it's going to give anyone involved is a headache.
Maybe this is why it gets grilled down to a base level most of the time, Azdan.
I also... speculate (and I hope I don't start to sound like Gwen here by going all "Power=BAD") that the dynamic in slavery tends to attract people who are more interested in the power fantasy side of roleplay, as opposed to the co-operative fiction element. I'm sure I don't need to elaborate any further on this point. Needless to say (though there's not anything wrong with that) it kinda doesn't mix well with what I'm going for, most of the time.
Not that I'm suggesting that applies to even the minority of people involved, of course. But it's something that makes me a little wary, as well.
-
+1000 to everything Azdan and Gwen said.
-
I believe I was the one person who didn't try to enslave Gwen.
I've been told more than once that I don't play Amarr correctly exactly for stuff like that.
-
Like, to give an example, I've been in one-on-one RPs with about 4 Amarrian RPers with Gwen, and three out of four of those had them wanting to attempt to enslave her, out of which only one mailed me in advance to ask if I was interested in pursuing the plot thread.
lolwhat?
Sorry, I've only played Makkal (Khanid noblewoman) and had no idea this was a thing.
-
I must have misunderstood terribly because that sounded like Amarrian characters trying to enslave another capsuleer.
-
I like the Caldari/Gallente conflict better (and find it easier to become invested in people invested in it) because it seems to be more a battle of ideals. A temperate war with abstract motivations and variable levels of involement that doesn't really need to have a proper, final revolution, so long as it continues to simmer on in interesting manner. But I feel like the Amarr/Minmatar conflict is, in the inverse, so hot that it seems to define those two factions,
Thats funny. From my experience, while the IC fight between the Minmatar and the Ammarians seems the most intense, from my OOC experience the Gallente/Caldari conflict just had a ton of vitrol between the players as much as the characters. Just seemed to be a lot of antagonism there. And I wub most of the Ammarrian RPers I run into, theyre good people and fun to play with/against. (Rodj is like my favorite EVE RPer of all time, I dearly miss the Archbishops Sermons, Aldy's hair is flowing and aweinspiring, etc)
Also, may I suggest to the Mods that we branch off the "Slavery" discussion to its own thread? I would love to contribute but dont want to hijack Ava's thread any more than it has been.
-
Dropped a note into the mod area in case someone has a chance to do it (not sure if I will tonight).
In the future, reporting your own post (or the beginning of the place where the side discussion starts) with a note requesting a possible thread split works just as well. :)
-
[mod]Done. Let me know if I missed one.[/mod]
-
I'm usually of the opinion that capsuleers who own slaves, being stupidly wealthy, probably have extremely little to do with the day-to-day running of slavery business.
The super-rich at the top could care less how the house staff is being disciplined; they have people who have been hired to handle that sort of thing.
If you own even a few capsuleer ships and holdings you've probably got -thousands- of people working for you. I imagine you only deal directly with a small, small minority and leave the daily ins and outs to subordinates far down the chain.
IE I find it extremely unlikely capsuleers are the ones getting too involved in the gritty parts.
-
I'm usually of the opinion that capsuleers who own slaves, being stupidly wealthy, probably have extremely little to do with the day-to-day running of slavery business.
The super-rich at the top could care less how the house staff is being disciplined; they have people who have been hired to handle that sort of thing.
If you own even a few capsuleer ships and holdings you've probably got -thousands- of people working for you. I imagine you only deal directly with a small, small minority and leave the daily ins and outs to subordinates far down the chain.
IE I find it extremely unlikely capsuleers are the ones getting too involved in the gritty parts.
This. I tend to roleplay that if Katrina needs to get involved with any sort of discipline, the person involved is probably going to lose their job on the spot. Katrina has more important things to do than tell a maid to show up on time or make sure the floor is spotless.
That said, I think a lot of the slaves we see being mentioned are personal servants to the capsuleer in question, which offers plenty of legitimacy for the capsuleer interacting with them regularly.
-
Thanks for the reply, Art.
There's a few problems, really. The primary one being player characters that are "slaves" and attribute all sorts of atrocities to it. "My mother was a sex slave, my cousin was abused physically until he died, our WHOLE FAMILY is on Vitoc, etc, etc." The number of problems with this are astronomical. First, for a capsuleer to be a slave is pretty ridiculous to start with, there's absolutely no way to "hold" a capsuleer in slavery. At best, a capsuleer can be an indentured servant be virtue of owing a debt to someone or if that someone has some way of keeping them there (blackmail, family hostages, etc) but even then it's a workaround, at best.
Second, PF touches upon slave mistreatment and abuse in the Empire (and the Kingdom) but it also makes it quite clear that it's a minority, not a majority and that the Empire actually looks unfavorably on it. Vitoxin is used on less than 10% of total slaves and most of those are ship-crew slaves. Slave abuse seldom happens because if it gets out that a Holder is mistreating their slaves, the constant power struggles between nobles would shift when other nobles brought it to light and caused that Holder to lose favor with the throne and church. The Amarr DO believe in ethics and morality and DO have expectations on how to treat their slaves.
Then you run into the Amarr players that just want to be mustache-twirling evil slavers. The kind who abuse their own "slaves," or constantly make it a point to reference beating, torturing or otherwise harming their "slaves."
When you combine the two, you end up with this overwhelming impression in the RP bloc that the Amarr are immoral, unethical, slaving, evil bastards which doesn't match the PF at all.
Thus, when a conversation happens, it's the constant back and forth spew of bile that we've all grown to know and love instead of anything even resembling what the conversation would more likely look like. (A large part of this comes from our own OOC viewpoints on the detestable nature of slavery and carrying that over into our characters, as well).
The conversation that you referenced is a mature conversation compared to normal filth that gets broadcast over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
I highlighted and underlined the section of your reply that best summarizes your issue on the subject, and while I see your point I think there's plenty of room for understanding in the matter.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that Amarrians are also people, and I think we can agree that people can be awful. To make the presumption that mistreatment (both physically and mentally) of slaves never happens would be highly unlikely. In fact, I bet there are some Holders who see themselves as good people despite the terrible things they do to their property, for a variety of reasons. Does that mean all Holders are abusive and or unethical in their treatment of slaves? Probably not, but propaganda is a useful tool for detouring the uneducated.
You can't just wash away human behavior with 'evidence ' from prime fiction. I'm sure many Gallentean humanitarian organizations, Minmatar freedom fighter groups, and mustache twirling holoreel villains depict slavers in a negative light. I don't need PF to tell me that people of different cultures won't understand that the Amarr can be ethical and morally upright by their cultural standards. All they know is that the Amarr enslave innocent victims and inject them with brutal poisons to keep them in line. It's not much different than the slutty Gallentean stereotype, or the greedy Caldari stereotype. It's simple and it catches people's attentions easily.
Who cares if former/current slaves were mistreated or abused? If I were an ethical Amarrian Holder, it would be all the more reason to adhere to my values and not mistreat my slaves. It gives an Amarrian faithful an opportunity to separate himself from your lawless Angel Cartel slaver or Sansha Drone Overlord, but expecting a general audience of people who don't share the Amarrian ideal to empathize is folly. Do you really think a former slave is going to care whether you treat your slaves better than the Sansha? Probably not!
I think most of the problems you're describing has more to do with the application of the role than the role itself. Mustache twirling villains and slave-capsuleers can be done well if applied in an appealing manner with many dimensions.
Years ago, I had a slave capsuleer who was a Minmatar that fully embraced the teachings of the Amarrian faith and accepted her place as a slave despite being a pilot. When her owner placed her on sale on the Summit, Verone outbid everyone and let her go free. She killed herself because she couldn't handle the idea of being free. Personally, I thought I put enough thought and background into the character to make her more than just a stereotype or failed idea, but that's just a matter of personal opinion, I suppose.
Also, I'd like to see someone play out the blackmail background as a motivation for their behavior, as it gives lots of opportunity for internal conflict. Imagining a former freedom fighter being coerced to fight for the 24th Crusade to ensure no harm comes to their loved ones still in the empire could be an interesting role if fleshed out.
-
I believe you assume (and this might be due to misrepresentation on my part) that I want to try and suggest that mistreatment never happens. That is not at all the case.
My problem stems from the fact that the RP community, as a whole, has highlighted all the mistreatment, abuse and ugliness that happens in slavery and brought it to the forefront so that it seems like it's this rampantly spread, extremely common occurrence - which it's not.
I think most of the problems you're describing has more to do with the application of the role than the role itself. Mustache twirling villains and slave-capsuleers can be done well if applied in an appealing manner with many dimensions.
Yes, this would be the "handled maturely" thing I spoke of at first. I don't mind people playing out the atrocities attached to slavery (they do happen, after all), the problem is that it is very seldom done with any character depth or consideration. It's tossed around casually and highlighted over and over again like a bad record.
As for the blackmail role, I know at least one character that is playing out something similar to it and doing it well and with reasonable responses, motivations and character depth. I'm not suggesting none of this can happen, I'm saying that sadly it very seldom seems to happen with any depth and maturity when it comes to the topics of religion and slavery.
-
Like, to give an example, I've been in one-on-one RPs with about 4 Amarrian RPers with Gwen, and three out of four of those had them wanting to attempt to enslave her, out of which only one mailed me in advance to ask if I was interested in pursuing the plot thread.
Gahahahahahaha, that's hilarious (and unsurprising). Cripes, see, that's why I just don't bother with Amarr/Minmatar RP. All this slavery stuff with BDSM undertones/overtures (when it's done between PCs). Gwen's the perfect shy submissive type for it, too. That's why I don't like player-slavery. It makes a joke of both BDSM and the fiction material IMO. God almighty. It's fine with people RPing that in private channels, but I wince a bit when I see that in the Summit...
Anyway, it's just a case of "RP EZ mode". Slavery is bad IRL, it is bad in-universe and always will be. Same with Gallentean stereotypes. Democracy (especially US/UK) is perceived to have lots of gaping flaws right now, and obviously this translates into the same exact problems twenty thousand years in the future, with stuff like technology to aid it (how did social media help the Arab Spring? how can implants and neocoms help democracy in the Federation?). So it's easy to knock because of IRL, both slavery and democracy.
I'm not sure we can really knock RPers who come into the game and RP with this simplified approach. Not all of us are social experts or political scientists. Some just want some real casual stuff that doesn't require deep anthropological study of various topics, so when such things are brought up, they just mention a simple opinion just because they feel obliged to, and are subsequently torn apart by those who take the topic seriously, when the target never had the intention to to begin with.
-
A good post Seriphyn, with some solid points.
-
Like, to give an example, I've been in one-on-one RPs with about 4 Amarrian RPers with Gwen, and three out of four of those had them wanting to attempt to enslave her, out of which only one mailed me in advance to ask if I was interested in pursuing the plot thread.
Gahahahahahaha, that's hilarious (and unsurprising). Cripes, see, that's why I just don't bother with Amarr/Minmatar RP. All this slavery stuff with BDSM undertones/overtures (when it's done between PCs). Gwen's the perfect shy submissive type for it, too. That's why I don't like player-slavery. It makes a joke of both BDSM and the fiction material IMO. God almighty. It's fine with people RPing that in private channels, but I wince a bit when I see that in the Summit...
Anyway, it's just a case of "RP EZ mode". Slavery is bad IRL, it is bad in-universe and always will be. Same with Gallentean stereotypes. Democracy (especially US/UK) is perceived to have lots of gaping flaws right now, and obviously this translates into the same exact problems twenty thousand years in the future, with stuff like technology to aid it (how did social media help the Arab Spring? how can implants and neocoms help democracy in the Federation?). So it's easy to knock because of IRL, both slavery and democracy.
I'm not sure we can really knock RPers who come into the game and RP with this simplified approach. Not all of us are social experts or political scientists. Some just want some real casual stuff that doesn't require deep anthropological study of various topics, so when such things are brought up, they just mention a simple opinion just because they feel obliged to, and are subsequently torn apart by those who take the topic seriously, when the target never had the intention to to begin with.
I disagree and would like to know your reasoning for postulating it will always be bad 'in universe' - other than your supplied logic of casual players.
-
Most of the world's women are still virtual slaves to their husbands and family. And while a portion of them are abused, most are not and certainly many don't have any problems with their own 'enslavement'.
Current cultural norms makes, etnocentrism, stereotypes and a lot of other predicatable and logical human behaviour makes any RP discussion about slavery hard. Pirates are cool, religious slavers are bad. That's the prevaling RL perspective which gets transplanted to EVE.
Slavery in EVE is bad because it is associated with the African slave imports and plantation work (and abuse) as popularized by modern media.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Slavery is and has been and considered quite normal for most of our history by most societies, including many passages from the Bible.
In any case, Merdaneth has never attempted to enslave other capsuleers. That would simply be stupid. And I do think for some of the BDSM crowd slavery is used as an convenient expression of their fantasies about that topic.
I like slavery as a topic specifically because it allows me to address many RL slavery parallels and I try to engage players to think about this issues a little bit further than 'slavery is evil'. Eve allows me to pose as a slaver and try and defend very impopular points of view as an exercise to get other people to think in a manner that wouldn't be possible IRL because people would mistake me for a proponent of slavery and 'evil man'.
-
If as a society you defeat a bunch of people in combat, you will very probably have lots of prisoners.
If you don't have a huge food surplus, you sort of have three choices. Either you kill them, you let them go, or you enslave them.
Letting them go, for a society that is fighting for something other than lines on map, and in an environment where they can go back to being combat effective in a short space of time (say, spears and leather vests) is not always a good option.
Killing people in cold blood is apparently quite hard for lots of people.
Slavery might be seen as the least bad option.
Somewhat from memory, the term "Slave" came from the term "Slav", the people living in bits of central Europe. Norse "Vikings" would do a grand tour involving visiting Russia, sailing down the Dnieper to the Black Sea and then Constantinople, sell all the stuff (furs slaves, etc) for gold, silks and spices, buy a new boat, and sail back to Norway/Sweden via the North Sea. Originally, they might have captured some of these people in battle, but after a while, intentionally taking slaves to sell for gold was a popular way for a young man of good family to get his start in life.
I did a fair bit of reading of the sagas and as much history as I could find about Vikings (about 15 years ago now) and I'm aware that some of the currently accepted stuff has changed, but I'm not entirely sure in which areas.
My memory is that when the Vikings took slaves home (though this may have been specifically Iceland), there were accepted rules of treatment. The owner had to set a slave price (being the price paid, or the price the owner could have got) when they took the slave, and they had to give the slave enough land to run their own garden plot. After the slave had done their usual hours for the day they had to be given time to work on their own plot. The produce from that plot could be sold and the slave could keep the money (perhaps as credit) towards buying themselves out of slavery.
It was said that a very dedicated and competent person could buy themselves free in a year, an average person in two, and someone with any capacity to work at all could buy themselves free in three.
After they were freed, the previous owner owed them some duties. Since most of the laws depended more on patronage and friends than legal institutions, to get any sort of justice, you needed someone to support your cases in the law courts. Since someone brought to the area as a slave didn't have those networks, the person that brought them there was required to do it for them.
This is a very different picture of slavery to the standard Africans exported to the US model, and I sometimes think of Amarrian slavery that way when I think of Holders who aren't being bastards (except for the whole buying themselves free thing).
[Note that I couldn't give you references, and my memory is going... Oh, is that the time? Lunch!]
-
I disagree and would like to know your reasoning for postulating it will always be bad 'in universe' - other than your supplied logic of casual players.
Because EVE is dystopian sci-fi.
In my mind, the problem isn't that the Amarr are too bad, but that the other factions don't have their badness played up enough.
That said, one thing that irritates me is people making up atrocities for every day of the year that the Amarr have committed. Children put to death because they drew a penis? Amarrian immigrants committing honor-killings? Female genital mutilation as standard for slaves?
I sometimes think people are using de Sade as a source of prime fiction.
-
I disagree and would like to know your reasoning for postulating it will always be bad 'in universe' - other than your supplied logic of casual players.
I think Seriphyn was being facetious here - i.e., "Here is the logic some people use to justify their treatment of the Amarr as horrible evil 24/7 slaver-torturers: "It is viewed as bad IRL, therefore must be bad in a fictional universe as well."
-
I disagree and would like to know your reasoning for postulating it will always be bad 'in universe' - other than your supplied logic of casual players.
Because EVE is dystopian sci-fi.
In my mind, the problem isn't that the Amarr are too bad, but that the other factions don't have their badness played up enough.
That said, one thing that irritates me is people making up atrocities for every day of the year that the Amarr have committed. Children put to death because they drew a penis? Amarrian immigrants committing honor-killings? Female genital mutilation as standard for slaves?
I sometimes think people are using de Sade as a source of prime fiction.
EVE can be dystopian science fiction, would be my personal approach on the matter. I am not at all interested in depression wrapped up in pseudo-writing. However, I do agree there is a perceptible difference in how villainous the 'good guys' are portrayed. I would prefer the brush to wash it all evenly, but it would probably be best if there wasn't a villainy brush at all.
I too have noticed the examples you have mentioned, and that is simply a fault of players poorly translating travesty into the EVE world. Earthly concepts are the easiest to translate, but not at all the most appropriate in many contexts.
-
The important thing to remember is that most slave owners throughout history didn't consider themselves to be evil, considered slavery to be perfectly normal, and did not define themselves by the fact that they owned slaves.
In a similar vein, many people throughout history have considered their own nation's policies of colonialism to be as much of a benefit for the colonised as for the colonisers.
-
The important thing to remember is that most slave owners throughout history didn't consider themselves to be evil, considered slavery to be perfectly normal, and did not define themselves by the fact that they owned slaves.
In a similar vein, many people throughout history have considered their own nation's policies of colonialism to be as much of a benefit for the colonised as for the colonisers.
very much this. I think a major part of the problem is that a certain noisy subset of the slavers all call attention to the fact that they are slavers at every opportunity. If someone holds slaves, they shouldn't flaunt it, it shouldn't be something important enough for them to flaunt. The only reason to call attention to it ICly, is to call attention to it OOCly, and ooh, look how edgy I am.
-
I disagree and would like to know your reasoning for postulating it will always be bad 'in universe' - other than your supplied logic of casual players.
Because EVE is dystopian sci-fi.
In my mind, the problem isn't that the Amarr are too bad, but that the other factions don't have their badness played up enough.
That said, one thing that irritates me is people making up atrocities for every day of the year that the Amarr have committed. Children put to death because they drew a penis? Amarrian immigrants committing honor-killings? Female genital mutilation as standard for slaves?
I sometimes think people are using de Sade as a source of prime fiction.
Yes, that's exactly the problem, other factions don't have their badness played up enough.
Also, sorry if I was doing it wrong with that children drawing a penis on a wall and starting a discussion that I found interesting about honor-killings. I could have done it with whatever faction I choosed, but here I had a character with an ammatar childhood. It was also an occasion to play something else than the usual dull "I treat my slaves well like human beings" that a lot of Amarrians do to counterbalance the black strokes the Amarr usually get from people (take Nico for example, she is the perfect good example of what a good Holder can be, a Holder that has a very well thought educationnal slave program but that will never yell everywhere "I AM A NICE HOLDER AND I GIVE COOKIES TO MY SLAVES", she will merely tell you "My methods are efficient and here are the results", pointing at emancipated slaves that live like perfect amarrian citizens, educated fairly but with an iron grip when needed).
I merely wanted to illustrate what can happen on backwater worlds and found the story interesting. Actually I was quite content with it, since it was full of shades of grey. Unfortunately, I did not have the time to finish it on the Summit since it started an interesting discussion just after. It's too bad because i only had the time to tell about the dark side of the story. I had something in the lines of "Plantation" in mind when I started the discussion.
Make up your mind, do you want stories only about nice holders, or do you want stories only about evil slavers ? I thought somewhere in the middle, with shades of grey would be better, but apparently people are not happy when it is once again potraying the Amarr in a dark way. At least I played my part by potraying them like that, unlike many factions that, as you say, are not enough painted in black by their own RPers.
-
Casual Amarrian/Minmatar roleplayers tend to be trolls.
Don't feed them.
-
Second, PF touches upon slave mistreatment and abuse in the Empire (and the Kingdom) but it also makes it quite clear that it's a minority, not a majority and that the Empire actually looks unfavorably on it. Vitoxin is used on less than 10% of total slaves and most of those are ship-crew slaves. Slave abuse seldom happens because if it gets out that a Holder is mistreating their slaves, the constant power struggles between nobles would shift when other nobles brought it to light and caused that Holder to lose favor with the throne and church. The Amarr DO believe in ethics and morality and DO have expectations on how to treat their slaves.
If this is true then I have honestly missed the part in the PF where it says that slave mistreatment is a minority problem. Could you enlighten me as to where you got that information from? I've derived just the opposite information from the slavery pf. I suppose there is a teetering line between what the Amarr consider "mistreatment" or "Abuse" and what the Amarr would consider "discipline" and "punishment" vice what the other cultures would consider between those two extremes.
Perhaps The Amarr pf shows that abuse is only in certain circumstances and otherwise the methods used to control slaves, like microcontrollers, Vitoxin/Vitoc, slaver hounds, whips etc are just considered part of the slave experience and not counted towards mistreatment and abuse. Would be interested in reading more about that either way. Thanks
-
Happily Logan. :)
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Slavery#Amarr_Empire
Slavers undergo extensive training in the proper methods of gathering and indoctrinating fresh slaves. Because the task is considered sacred by the Amarr, slavers are highly monitored by members of the clergy. They are expected to refrain from unnecessary cruelty, the needless killing of slaves, or other acts that unduly harm slaves.
Transcranial microcontrollers have seen limited use throughout the Empire. However, they are considered controversial in the Empire, as many believe they undermine the religious reasons the Amarr keep slaves.
The Amarr view slavery as an essential part of their society, from the lowest commoner all the way to the most powerful Holders. Some outsiders believe the Amarr take pleasure in the suffering of slaves, particularly commoners who are thought to bear their own misery only against the greater pain of those enslaved. While this may be true in isolated incidents, the majority of Amarr do not view slavery in such a way. Instead, the idea persists that slavery is a sacred duty of all Amarr.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Vitoxin
Across the Empire, the Vitoc Method is thought to be used on less than 10% of slaves. While this is a small percentage, it still amounts to a few billion individuals and thanks to intermittent peace deals with the Empire and the Mandate, and the actions of freedom fighters, there are also substantial numbers of former slaves in the Republic who are still ruled by the Vitoc regimen.
Regarding the use of Vitoxin:
Most slaves in the Empire are controlled simply by violence or the threat of such. Overseers constantly patrol slave populations, making sure they are doing work and not misbehaving. Slaves who are not doing as they should may be beaten, isolated, denied sufficient or high quality food and water, or punished in some other methods. However, some slave populations, such as those working on space ships or in dangerous mining colonies, or particularly troublesome and rebellious slaves, require more stringent methods.
I'd recommend reading the first reference pretty thoroughly as it discussed a great deal about slavery in every nation (not just the Empire) and has cited references to its information.
-
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Vitoxin
Regarding the use of Vitoxin:
Most slaves in the Empire are controlled simply by violence or the threat of such. Overseers constantly patrol slave populations, making sure they are doing work and not misbehaving. Slaves who are not doing as they should may be beaten, isolated, denied sufficient or high quality food and water, or punished in some other methods. However, some slave populations, such as those working on space ships or in dangerous mining colonies, or particularly troublesome and rebellious slaves, require more stringent methods.
I'd recommend reading the first reference pretty thoroughly as it discussed a great deal about slavery in every nation (not just the Empire) and has cited references to its information.
I'm re-reading the Amarr history on slavery, but honestly there is no mention either way of the separation between abuse and cruelty and what the Amarr consider punishment and acceptable cruelty.
For instance in the Vitoxin article that you provided it says "Most slaves in the Empire are controlled simply by violence or the threat of such... Slaves who are not going as they should may be beaten, Isolated, denied sufficient or high quality food and water... some slave populations[high risk or troublesome]...require more stringent methods."
Most implies a majority, so from that I can infer that a majority of slaves are controlled by the use or threat of violence, including beating, isolation, and starvation, all methods that I would consider "Mistreatment" on some level, especially any combination of the three. The Amarr likely view these mistreatments as "warranted" to control their slaves, this doesn't seem to make it not "mistreatment" from an outside culture's viewpoint. I get that the Amarr wouldn't see it as such, but it's still mistreatment.
Re-reading the slavery bit,
"Proper slavery did not appear until the beginning of the Reclaiming in 20078 AD[1]. The Udorian presence on Amarr Island allowed many of the Empire's peasants the opportunity to leave for a much less restrictive society. The Emperor at the time, fearing the threat of the Udorians, declared them heretics and ordered an entire merchant fleet seized by his army. The Udorian traders, unprepared for this, were captured nearly to the man."
This was the start of slavery and then it was added to the scriptures later as a religious mandate, there's not really much talk about how the slaves are kept other than they are treated depending on how well they convert to the Amarr religion or become useful to their holders. I'm not really seeing the statement that the amarr treat their slaves well in some manner, other than they are expected to indoctrinate them into the Amarr faith. Means of doing that aren't defined.
-
I never said the Amarr treat their slaves well.
I said that the idea that the Amarr constantly abuse them and regularly engage in sexual abuse, slaying of children, vitoxin poisoning or whatever other atrocities people like to play up isn't a factually based idea.
Slavery isn't pretty, it isn't meant to be.
What I AM saying is that there are several statements that indicate that there are expectations on how to treat slaves. The Amarr don't take pleasure in the suffering of slaves. The Amarr slavers are watched by the clergy to ensure that they aren't mistreated. Yes, the standards of mistreatment may vary but the fact is that the Amarr are not the horrible, inhumane monsters that everyone wants to make them out to be.
-
I believe you assume (and this might be due to misrepresentation on my part) that I want to try and suggest that mistreatment never happens. That is not at all the case.
My problem stems from the fact that the RP community, as a whole, has highlighted all the mistreatment, abuse and ugliness that happens in slavery and brought it to the forefront so that it seems like it's this rampantly spread, extremely common occurrence - which it's not.
No, this is what you said. Which is what Logan refuted. You added those specifics post hoc.
-
I never stated it never happens, not once in my entire post.
I said that it does happen but it's not this overwhelming majority that people play it up to be. The Amarr do have expectations and regulations on it, to deny that is a fallacy. Just because I do not directly state that mistreatment happens doesn't mean I've denied that it does, my argument is that it's extremely overplayed and escalated well beyond what is apparently intended by the PF.
-
beating a slave reflects poorly upon the Holder, as it shows that they lack the skill to instil proper Amarr virtues in the slave.
-
Second, PF touches upon slave mistreatment and abuse in the Empire (and the Kingdom) but it also makes it quite clear that it's a minority, not a majority and that the Empire actually looks unfavorably on it. Vitoxin is used on less than 10% of total slaves and most of those are ship-crew slaves. Slave abuse seldom happens because if it gets out that a Holder is mistreating their slaves, the constant power struggles between nobles would shift when other nobles brought it to light and caused that Holder to lose favor with the throne and church. The Amarr DO believe in ethics and morality and DO have expectations on how to treat their slaves.
Then you run into the Amarr players that just want to be mustache-twirling evil slavers. The kind who abuse their own "slaves," or constantly make it a point to reference beating, torturing or otherwise harming their "slaves."
hmm
I never said the Amarr treat their slaves well.
Okay then its just a matter of me taking your words differently than intended. Your first post seems to me to say that mistreatment as you define by both sexual as well as physical violence doesn't happen. or is rather uncommon. I'm simply pointing out that physical violence is not uncommon, but that it happens to the majority of Amarr slaves. It's not an uncreditable leap to assume that the overseer's who wander freely amongst the slaves would not partake in sexual abuse as well as physical. I doubt rape would be high on their list visavi the idea that they wouldn't want a bunch of overseer bastards running around, but there are a lot of other "kinds" of sexual abuse.
As a slave, even with supposed places the slave could go to report the "infraction" against them, or others, would reporting those things be in their best interests, doubtful, so they likely do not get reported.
Now don't take this as all Amarr are "mustache-twirling evil slavers." I mean this in that Amarr slaveholders, in the majority, physically, mentally, and most likely (to some extent) sexually abuse their slaves as a matter of course. Perhaps not the Holders themselves, but duly appointed representatives of the Holders.
There's also little evidence to suggest that the Amarr do not regularly engage in sexual abuse, brutal beatings, etc. I'd agree that slaying of children would be ridiculous, but removing or threatening to remove children from their slave families and placed/placing them into Amarr re-education farms, for sure that happens. As our own history has shown us that is the best way to systematically remove cultures from our planet.
What I AM saying is that there are several statements that indicate that there are expectations on how to treat slaves. The Amarr don't take pleasure in the suffering of slaves. The Amarr slavers are watched by the clergy to ensure that they aren't mistreated. Yes, the standards of mistreatment may vary but the fact is that the Amarr are not the horrible, inhumane monsters that everyone wants to make them out to be.
You edited that last bit in there on me as I was responding... Cool that "insert quote" grabbed it.
Anyways, I see evidence of expectations, but then no solid proof of what exactly the expectations are. Amarr "shouldn't" take pleasure in suffering of slaves. That doesn't mean that some do/some do not. Or how rigidly the standards are upheld, there was a case of an entire freighter-full of slaves dying Standards of mistreatment even in varying degree's allows the use of physical and mental torture to control their slaves.
Slavery as a practice is fairly inhumane to me(OOC) Logan (IC, as a former angel cartel slave), making the use of it pretty inhumane/mistreatment heavy idea and practice. Defending it as "not that bad" seems hard for me to believe IC or OOC.
beating a slave reflects poorly upon the Holder, as it shows that they lack the skill to instil proper Amarr virtues in the slave.
Where does it state this and how does that reflect against how the majority of 'Amarr' slaves are controlled via the use of the threat of Physical/mental abuse and or violence. I haven't seen any indication of this in the PF, that's the bit I am still looking for, thanks Louella
-
I never stated it never happens, not once in my entire post.
I said that it does happen but it's not this overwhelming majority that people play it up to be. The Amarr do have expectations and regulations on it, to deny that is a fallacy. Just because I do not directly state that mistreatment happens doesn't mean I've denied that it does, my argument is that it's extremely overplayed and escalated well beyond what is apparently intended by the PF.
I guess that depends on what you have been exposed to in terms of what people are claiming. The majority of claims I have heard IC through Logan's interactions as well as my alts, seem pretty likely. I'm also not sure what you define as "overwhelming majority." I think that the use of the word "most" seems to indicate a majority of slaves is controlled by what I and -I hope- most people in this generation would label as 'mistreatment.'
Slavery isn't nice and isn't supposed to be, in this you are correct, 'mistreatment' of a slave is part of them being a slave, being defined as less than a full human by some perceived inequity that only suffering and pain, if anything, can change. I find it fallacious to attempt to categorize 'slavery' as overplayed, and escalated well beyond what is [subjectively]apparently intended by the PF.
-
beating a slave reflects poorly upon the Holder, as it shows that they lack the skill to instil proper Amarr virtues in the slave.
Where does it state this and how does that reflect against how the majority of 'Amarr' slaves are controlled via the use of the threat of Physical/mental abuse and or violence. I haven't seen any indication of this in the PF, that's the bit I am still looking for, thanks Louella
Not sure if it is stated explicitly, but I believe it is reasonable extension of a bit in an article about slaves.
aha:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Slavery#Holders
"a Holder who never frees his slaves and mistreats them will be viewed negatively by his fellows and the religious authorities."
also:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Slavery#Societal_View
"A group known as liberal Holders tends to give their slaves far more leeway and eschew more extreme methods of punishment. More conservative elements in the Empire often frown on liberals as coddling slaves and thus stunting their spiritual development."
may be relevant.
So, at the church ice cream social, the liberal holder ladies gossip with each other saying things such as:
"Did you hear about Lord Evil ? A Speaker of Truth told him off for beating a slave! an actual Speaker of Truth!"
"My goodness. I knew he beat his slaves a lot, he is such an uncouth fellow, you have to wonder at the previous Lord's choice in naming him the heir. Best of a bad lot, perhaps?"
-
I read those references as well, but it doesn't define what "Mistreatment" is. Obviously the bar is pretty low if the most common method of slave control is physical and mental abuse.
Also wouldn't the 'liberal' Holders tend to be in the minority, and what is their definition of more leeway?
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Slavery#Methods_of_Control
Goes through the Methods of control and thanks CCP since that seems to indicate that Vitoxin as a control method was much more wide-spread than 10%, and now that insorum is an effective counter to that, they are going back to slave-collars.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Slavery#Justification
"Those enslaved are expected to toil and suffer until they have purged themselves of the sins that caused their ancestors to be cast down."
Sure, there are indications that pious slaves can be treated much better than rebellious ones, and slave children with any possible skill are also treated well and even sent to Amarr schools, but I don't think it's the "norm" to be treated so nicely.
-
There is a E-ON chronicle about soft slave controlling methods.
Mainly through cultural manipulation through integration of stories into the slave population that encourage certain kinds of behaviour.
-
Vitoxin was a popular (and remains a popular) use of control for rebellious slaves and slaves in dangerous areas like mines and space ships. It remains a low number in the greater whole.
It doesn't matter though, I apologize for stepping into the conversation. Apparently no amount of arguing is going to change the consensus that the Amarr are just evil bastards who take whatever liberties they want with their slaves despite any number of indications otherwise. Carry on.
-
I don't know.
It just seems rather contradictory to me, to have slaves as being cheap enough that beatings and gratuitous deaths are commonplace, and at the same time, expensive enough that fleets of warships are profitably deployed to seize a few thousand individuals.
but contradictions are everywhere in the PF. :\
-
Vitoxin was a popular (and remains a popular) use of control for rebellious slaves and slaves in dangerous areas like mines and space ships. It remains a low number in the greater whole.
It doesn't matter though, I apologize for stepping into the conversation. Apparently no amount of arguing is going to change the consensus that the Amarr are just evil bastards who take whatever liberties they want with their slaves despite any number of indications otherwise. Carry on.
"In recent years, the most popular form of slave control has been the Vitoc method. The Vitoc method involves two steps. First, a slave is infected with a viral agent known as Vitoxin. Next, the slave is given a drug known as Vitoc. Vitoc not only staves off the multitude of physical effects of Vitoxin, it also induces mild euphoria. In this way, slaves can come to regard the Vitoc as a reward rather than a method of control.
This method was widely used by the time of the Elder War, which led to widespread chaos when Insorum, a permanent cure to Vitoxin, was deployed over slave worlds. The slaves, freed of their addiction, rebelled and joined the invaders against the Amarr."
Is what I was referring to re: vitoxin PF inconsistencies. According to that, it seems like some greater percentage of the slave population was in need of insorum to free them of their Vitoc anti-virus addiction.
ArtOfLight, you are clearly bowing out of this conversation, but I won't let you go so easily because your parting shot indicates that "Any number of indications" are present. I've asked for you to show them to me and thus far we haven't been able to agree on one. Am I still misunderstanding your baseline point? Are you just saying that not every slave is poorly treated (a point I agree on) or are you saying that the majority of slaves are not poorly treated (a point I do not agree on and have given my reasons in PF and OOC reasons why I don't agree)?
Amarr are not JUST evil slavers, that's terribly black and white for a many shades of grey universe. However, I think they do have slavers and holders who fit that evil bill, and that their elite caste's treatment of slaves is cruel and some form of "Mistreatment" by our standards. Anyways, disregard if you will. Thanks for the links to some useful information and the good discussion.
I don't know.
It just seems rather contradictory to me, to have slaves as being cheap enough that beatings and gratuitous deaths are commonplace, and at the same time, expensive enough that fleets of warships are profitably deployed to seize a few thousand individuals.
but contradictions are everywhere in the PF. :\
Never mentioned gratuitous deaths, just that violence or force, or the implication of such actions are used to keep slaves in line, and that these things are what I would consider "mistreatment" of slaves. Think the money that using a slave to do labor saves, not to mention the religious significance of bringing another soul or group of souls to the faith, that alone gives each slave enough worth to send warships to be sent to task. vOv
You are correct, contradictions in PF all over the place. Just trying to discuss.
-
I don't find much support for the idea that Holders sexually abuse their slaves, myself. (I don't doubt that it happens, but we lack evidence that it happens a lot.)
The evidence that they beat them, starve them, and "mistreat" them in other ways to install discipline is pretty overwhelming, though, particularly in the not-so-liberal parts of the Empire. If it were normal never to do that, then they wouldn't be "liberal" but "centrist" or whatever.
-
There seems to be some intuitive leap here from violence and coercion to abuse.
That line would not be crossed if the motives of the dominant party are 'pure'.
The line would not be crossed because of one main reason, the cultural indoctrination that the Amarrians have gone through.
If the religion and the culture make mistreatment of slaves something that is frowned upon then it is not practiced.
Also there is one issue that has not really been touched in the PF, the actual mechanics of penance for sins.
The whole Amarrian culture is tiered because of its feudal nature, why would not the slaves be tiered in a similar manner.
Why would not there be certain sets of rules set for this hierarchy within the hierarchy that is the Empire.
Instead of using a wide brush to paint all slavery with the same colour, shouldn't we as a community start entertaining different methods of finding a way out of the black and white morality that is imposed on us by our OOC views and perhaps start thinking about ways of finding common ground on how to find the different shades of grey within the complex world that is in New Eden.
For me as an Amarrian roleplayer this part of the issue has been simple.
The more you have done penance, the more human you are.
The less human you are, the more stern you have to be in your admonishments.
The perverse thing about the Amarrian Faith is that the cruelty of the punishment stems from the concern for the immortal soul of the person who is being punished.
If they do not repent, they are lost.
There is a very good Scripture snippet about a person that has turned away from God the second time and thus being unredeemable.
All the heathens have turned away from God once, the second time cannot be allowed if there is any chance of them being saved.
Another of the main reasons that mix this issue and makes it quite different from any slavery is in real life.
It is not about money.
It is about religion, not in the way it was during the crusades, not in the way it was mixed in politics since that.
It is all about religion.
-
I don't find much support for the idea that Holders sexually abuse their slaves, myself. (I don't doubt that it happens, but we lack evidence that it happens a lot.)
TEA, (I know, I know) fairly explicitly (no pun intended) indicates that Chamberlain Karsoth was sexually abusing his slaves.
That's not to say it was hugely common or anything, but one might make assumptions based on one of the most powerful people in the Empire behaving that way fairly obviously to his underlings. You might make further assumptions based on Him being executed by Jamyl, and that "things might have changed" unless you think he got whacked for making a big political play and failing, rather than his treatment of slaves.
Of course, it was probably just TonyG finding an easy way to target designate the bad guy in the scene, so take it with a grain of salt.
-
Ulphus: I was thinking about those scenes when I wrote that, but I decided a long time ago to assume that Karsoth was both an aberration and an abomination, which is why he kept it so secret. If it were more culturally acceptable, then he wouldn't have had to keep it under wraps.
Lallara: Some of us live in parts of the world where slavery has a recent past and it's partly (though not entirely) tied to religion. So I don't doubt that it colors our perception of the RP around it, whether because of cultural guilt or something else. Saving souls is certainly part of the history of slavery in the New World.
I'd also hypothesize that the Amarrian economic system does in fact benefit tremendously from slavery, but that's a different angle altogether.
-
OTT: I rolled my eyes so hard at self-admitted non Amarr/Minmatar RPers pointing and screaming "You're doin it wrong!" I saw my own brain.
Back to beating your usually scheduled horse.
-
There's a pretty basic disjunction between those who consider that slavery is, by its very nature, a fundamental abuse of human rights, and those who consider that slavery is an effective and desirable way of bringing the souls of the benighted to God, which is one of the highest human callings. For the former, it doesn't matter how "nicely" it may be implemented. For the latter, it's either worth some cost in suffering (Lallara uses the word "penance") to achieve such an elevated goal, or the "discipline" shaped by that suffering is part of the goal.
OOC, it's worth remembering that these are our agreed IC starting positions, and we're playing a game from there. The Amarrian starting point is going to be attacked IC by most characters who don't share its religious framework, and OOC by most players as essentially unsympathetic to modern sensibilities. Accept those game conditions and run with it: Amarrian player OOC victory conditions seem essentially about getting support and respect for taking a tricky starting point and playing it well, not to have people sympathising with the content of what you're playing.
-
I must apologize to those in this thread as I responded very poorly to the topic. I find myself frustrated with a number of things that I've had to contend with and I've been emotionally unstable the past couple of days as the events of my father passing are finally catching up to me. Apparently I'm what's known as a "late griever" in that things don't hit me until after most people have already started to recover.
Regardless, I apologize for being dismissive and unfair in my responses, mainly to Logan.
I would say that I disagree on a few things still but most of it is of minor importance in the grand scale.
A very good post Matariki and I will try and heed the advice contained within it. My interest wasn't really in making people like the PF about the Amarr or even like the Amarr but rather to try and point out that there's a lot of misconceptions about it all at least form my own perception. My responses were unwarranted in light of the disagreement.
Thank you all for understanding.
-
ArtOfLight, no problem. Grieving takes time, comes in waves, and keeps its own schedule.
-
I have been informed of what might have caused the initial misunderstanding and the subsequent frustration on my part for being misunderstood.
I wish to make it known that my intention is not at all to try and state that slave mistreatment and abuse does not happen in the Empire, it most certainly does. Nor am I trying to say that slavery is excusable because of how or why the Amarr employ it. My only intention in this discussion was to illustrate that not all slaves are treated as poorly as some PF suggests as there is also some PF that points out social, governmental and even religious expectations on the treatment of slaves in the Empire.
I personally get the impression from the PF that the extreme cases of abuse (sexual or otherwise) are isolated events and not commonplace. This is not to say that it doesn't happen or even that it doesn't happen often (the Empire is a HUGE place after all and even if it only happened to 10% of the slaves, you're talking about millions, maybe even billions of people).
My point is simply that from a grand scale look, I think the Empire's sins get played up a lot more than necessary and this causes some difficulty in trying to RP an Amarr, especially if you're trying to RP a decently humane one that isn't an abolitionist. It's a complex starting point as Matariki suggested and certainly opens itself up for constant debate and criticism. My hope was simply to shed a little bit of light on the situation from a PF perspective and point out that the Amarr are not quite as inhumane as they are often portrayed.
I apologize for any misgiving I've presented otherwise.
-
I think one of the major problems with the Slavery discussion in EVE is that the PF itself is contradictory. For example, we have quotes that indicate that Vitoc is primarily only used on otherwise incorrigible slaves and in places where disobedience cannot be risked, such as in the navy. Then we have sources saying that Vitoc is the new, latest and greatest thing and is the most common way of keeping slaves in line. This leads to an all-too-common situation: people disagreeing with each other and thinking that they are right. It is unique in this way: In real life, two people with opposing views can't actually both be correct. In EVE, thanks to our self-contradictory PF, they can. It just depends on which bit of PF they consider accurate and which bit they think is bullshit.
Personally, I'm more inclined to take the view which is sympathetic (sort of) to the Empire, specifically that:
Abuse, defined as unnecessary physical or psychological harm, is not a widespread thing. Corporal punishment isn't classified as abuse. Sexual abuse of slaves might be slightly more common than other forms of sexual abuse (familial, anywhere a person is in a position of authority, etc), but I wouldn't expect that to be widespread either.
Vitoc use is limited to cases where it is necessary, because other methods have failed or you're on a warship, etc. Cost is never mentioned but I can't imagine that infecting people and then feeding them a steady supply of vitoc is particularly economical.
The argument here is not whether slavery is good or bad. The argument is whether, within the framework of a society which condones slavery, abuse of the slaves is common. I don't think it would be, much moreso than abuse of women or children.
-
OffTopic: Bro, take all the time you need. Leave EVE if you need to, or come back here for escapism if that helps. Our disagreements about RP are all within the spirit of a friendly discussion about Internet spaceship stories. :)
-
Some comments for Victoria.
I decided to take the PF about whether the Vitoxin Method was uncommon (old sources) or common (middle-time sources) as an indication of changing practices over time. I assume that for whatever reason the technique became more widely used. I have no idea what's going on since the application of Insorum.
Sex in slavery is, for me, one of the issues that demonstrates how the same objectively-observed events can have very different interpretations depending on your position, experience and framework.
We have a thread here which presents the discreet Amarrian attitude to occasional servicing by slaves which seems accepted in the mainstream of EVE Amarrian RP (to the extent that such a mainstream exists, etc). I search for it as the "Mercedes" thread (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=1271.15). The Mercedes approach is something I consider a likely common model, although it's not by any means necessary in any given Amarrian household. For the person required to service their owner, the experience could be many different things. Yes, those might include awe and reverence. They might also very much not.
There's another post here which is relevant, which I search for as the "clammy" post (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3112.msg51967#msg51967). It talks about breeder slaves in breeder colonies. I think the nicest gloss you could put on it is a claim that "Our breeder colonies provide medical care consistent with SPCS codes, within a framework of economic viability, and there's no brutality involved", but... I expect that many of the people on the receiving end would have different takes on it, and to outsiders like Gallenteans and free Matari it's abhorrent.
And yet there are still "good people" in this society, trying to get along, look after their families and positions, and manage their obligations, including to their livestock.
I tend to think of Amarrians as all the different kinds of meat-eaters, running into other cultures of ethical and pragmatic vegetarians and still trying to work out how to think about their yummy bacon and the horrified look on the face of the person opposite them as they chow down.
-
Once again you've articulated what I think might have contributed to part of my original attempt at approaching this topic.
The Mercedes thread pretty much touches upon what I expect would happen in the Empire but the pointed difference between that and what people consider "sexual slavery" is what I was trying to point out as well. No doubt there are examples of sexual slavery and sexual abuse in the Empire but I imagine it's to a far lesser extent than some might suspect. The concept of having sex with slaves on the other hand is probably pretty common but kept quiet and casual and I doubt it's often forced rape as we think of it today. (Though it is technically rape as the slave-holder technically controls the slave).
-
TEA, (I know, I know) fairly explicitly (no pun intended) indicates that Chamberlain Karsoth was sexually abusing his slaves.
Chamberlain Karsoth was not part of the Amarrian mainstream religion.
He was a blood raider and his decadence and perversion as a human being had been taken to its limits by portraying him as sex maniac with penchant for orgies full of slave children.
That does not qualify as portrayal of the Amarrian culture when it comes to treating slaves.
It does portray well how the mighty can do whatever they want, which they have in the past, Kor-Azor heir for example.
There is also PF that states that they cannot do whatever they want, without any repercussions.
Kor-Azor heir chopped to slivers while he was alive.
Two things.
The first.
The same thing applies to slaves for a Holder as it applies to a Heir for his subjects.
There is no immunity for status as the previously mentioned bits of PF state.
It may mean that a Holder has to cause permanent damage on millions of unrepentant slaves to get a punishment (and their enemy to alert the religious authorities) but he will be punished.
It may mean that a Holder has to sexually abuse a dozen slaves on the brink of freedom to get any kind of punishment (and their enemy to alert the religious authorities) but he will receive punishment.
It may mean that a Holder sticks his tiddlywink into the arsehole of his favourite bed slave (and someone tells everybody about it) which means that he will not get married to the family that would improve the status of his whole bloodline.
A culture as old as the Amarrian one does have its failsafes to keep the whole slavery thing turning into a boinkfest for religion nerds.
The second thing.
The purity aspect of the Amarrian religion is quite well stated in PF.
The True Amarr are the Chosen because they never turned away from God.
They've spent the past milennia serving the Empire so they've done so much penance that they can be almost certain that they (and their whole bloodline since the day they were created) can reach the pearly gates.
Slaves (and all non-True Amarr) turned away from God and were lost for... lets say quite a long time.
Hence most of them (and their bloodlines to the way back when) have a long way to go, until they can even be given the choice of Free Will (meaning that when they are free, they are so indoctrinated that they will make the right choice as dictated by the Amarrian culture.)
Without Free Will someone is paramount to an animal.
Therefore Amarrians can have slave breeding programs without any kind of moral pangs.
Therefore diddling a slave or being diddled by a slave is paramount to bestiality or paedophilia.
To the mainstream culture of the Empire those that are fucking slaves are perverts.
If they do it in the public, they get trouble out of it.
If they do it in the public so that a heathen can find out about it, they are stupid and perverts.
If they are capsuleers, mehhhh, they're pretty much going to burn in hell anyways so who gives a shit.
Just a clarification on a thing or two.
The bloodline bit.
The sins of the father are visited upon his children.
It's a pretty old religious chiche but it seems to be constantly working in the Amarrian religion to a greater degree.
It has not really been addressed directly in PF so its mechanics are not clear.
It does seem like your immediate family is affected by your actions, in their social position in the Empire and in the state that their souls are in the eyes of the God (Empire was created to purify the spirit of Man).
In cloning this link is severed (until the zombiepsychicbitchqueen.)
In slaves (and heathens) it goes back further, all the way to the time when they turned away from God.
(When they have freedom and they have truly embraced God they get to start the tally over.)
This would be another reason for having the slaves in Hell on Earth-conditions for quite some time.
Why this card house of assumptions about the Amarrian religion and culture?
Mainly because it seems like a good way of dealing with all the psychological trauma that the slaver, not the slave, suffers.
De-humanization used as a protective tool on a societal level that enables the society itself to declare war on the unknown with wild abandon and a tool for protecting the integrity of the societys culture.
But I ramble, I'm off for brekkies.
-
Therefore diddling a slave or being diddled by a slave is paramount to bestiality or paedophilia.
To the mainstream culture of the Empire those that are fucking slaves are perverts.
Idonis Ardishapur had a Starkmanir lover: Chronicle: "Khumaak" (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=10-mar-04). While "[h]is family and friends would be appalled if they knew of his dark-skinned Starkmanir girl", the impression left is not that this would be seen as a perversion, but as a dreadful mis-match.
King Khanid II has a "personal slave" who I've generally seen assumed to be a sex partner, alhough we might all be reading too much into it. Chronicle: The Khanid Kingdom (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=aug03). "Khanid himself has a Gallentean - a former pop-star - as his personal slave, something he finds highly amusing but makes the Gallenteans frothing at their mouths."
-
Lallara's post is great. It is a question of different cultures. Take any other culture on earth with its own codes of conduct and morality and you will end up with a very new kind of honor, morality, and ethics. Take the japanese middle age eras, where the social castes were treated and expected to behave very differently than in our RL christian society. To the noble caste (samurais and daimyos), peasants, craftsmen, commoners, were treated like shit because they were considered inferior, much like it was the case between aristocracy and commoners in medieval Europe. But I take the middle age japanese example because there are a LOT of similarities with the Amarr Empire society.
I am not an expert of japanese cultural history, of course, but their rigid social order constructed around 3 levels of castes (samurais, commoners, and parias, similar to the indian untouchable harijan caste) directly comes from divine essence. Since it was a divine order, it was accepted by everyone as such, and so the society had to work that way and not another. In a very Holder fashion, samurais were considered to be the purest and noblest caste for the very reason that what was expected of them was 100 times higher in terms of moral standards than from any commoner. For example, it was not expected from a commoner to be polite and measured at all times, except ofc when adressing a superior. For a samurai, behaving like that was like losing face and was considered as quite a grave sin and a lack of etiquette. I often consider that the superiority complex of the Amarr looks at least a little like the samurai one, where they consider themselves superior for the simple reason that their etiquette and moral standards are higher. Because, eventually, they are closer to an evolved human being than the lower castes, from which we expect less. The only major difference with the Amarr is that they actually consider that they allow the lower castes to redeem and bring them to a superior state of being, where the japanese thought it was just part of a life cycle and they would eventually be reborn in the role of something else in their next life.
There is also the usual place of women in the samurai society. Their society was a lot less sexist/misogynist than our own middle age society. Female nobles were basically charged of the whole household, which not only means breeding children and educating them, but also managing the whole house, finances, relations, etiquette, etc. Their role in the society was not seen lesser than the one of their husbands. I often think that it is also often the case with true Amarrian ladies, which reminds me the racial description of the bloodline iirc.
You can claim how old and reactionary it is, and you probably will be right to a certain extent, so this is also why I wonder what our society would be like if we all evolved from a Zen/Buddhist/Bushido culture rather than a christian one, for example. A lot of things have changed since the spanish inquisition in our christian western society, and I bet a lot would have changed and evolved in the japanese one too if it had remained a perfectly insular one. This is also what makes me believe that saying that the Amarr Empire is a society of the past and comparing it to middle age is merely an IC propaganda tool for the gallente. The Amarr Empire may have been long and slow to evolve through stability and reactionary politics, it still has lasted something like 4 or 5 times longer than any other faction, which gives it a shitload of time to experiment with its own culture and evolve. They are still human, and do not work 10 times slower than any other human.
Since the Amarr Empire remained very insular in its nature until very recently in the history of New Eden, it is to be expected for it to have its own culture not tainted too much (yet) by foreign cultures. And it happens that I strongly believe that technological progress often, if not always, mean at least a bit of social progress when science starts to explain things better and more rationaly than religion does. We know that the Amarr are masters of technology and science in several domains like implants, lasers and energy, and a lot other fields, and probably cosmological science (since it is quite center to their religion and goals in the universe).
I don't find much support for the idea that Holders sexually abuse their slaves, myself. (I don't doubt that it happens, but we lack evidence that it happens a lot.)
TEA, (I know, I know) fairly explicitly (no pun intended) indicates that Chamberlain Karsoth was sexually abusing his slaves.
That's not to say it was hugely common or anything, but one might make assumptions based on one of the most powerful people in the Empire behaving that way fairly obviously to his underlings. You might make further assumptions based on Him being executed by Jamyl, and that "things might have changed" unless you think he got whacked for making a big political play and failing, rather than his treatment of slaves.
Of course, it was probably just TonyG finding an easy way to target designate the bad guy in the scene, so take it with a grain of salt.
Following that reasoning then psychopaths like Anders Brevik are now common criminals in Norway. Actually, most folks in Norway are mini Anders Brevik (sorry for the harsh analogy).
An example hardly makes a generality, whatever the example is.
-
I must apologize to those in this thread as I responded very poorly to the topic. I find myself frustrated with a number of things that I've had to contend with and I've been emotionally unstable the past couple of days as the events of my father passing are finally catching up to me. Apparently I'm what's known as a "late griever" in that things don't hit me until after most people have already started to recover.
Regardless, I apologize for being dismissive and unfair in my responses, mainly to Logan.
I would say that I disagree on a few things still but most of it is of minor importance in the grand scale.
A very good post Matariki and I will try and heed the advice contained within it. My interest wasn't really in making people like the PF about the Amarr or even like the Amarr but rather to try and point out that there's a lot of misconceptions about it all at least form my own perception. My responses were unwarranted in light of the disagreement.
Thank you all for understanding.
In any case since it took me a while to respond to this, the conversation has moved on, but just wanted to say that I didn't feel like your comments were in any way begrudging or dismissive of mine. I don't think an apology is needed but that could just be from hanging around on the Rote forums for too long, hardly civilized in comparison.
I am sorry for the loss of your Father, and wish you and your family the best in healing from such a loss. The grieving process is a long one no matter when you start it. Take care of yourself.
-
TEA, (I know, I know) fairly explicitly (no pun intended) indicates that Chamberlain Karsoth was sexually abusing his slaves.
Following that reasoning then psychopaths like Anders Brevik are now common criminals in Norway. Actually, most folks in Norway are mini Anders Brevik (sorry for the harsh analogy).
Not a good analogy. If Norway made Anders their prime minister, then that might be a better example.
The impression I got about Karsoth was that he wasn't hiding what he was doing all that much, but of course, no true amarrian would behave like Karsoth...
A better analogy might be one of the henchmen of Pol Pot. for a time, what they did was "normal" in Kampuchea, but a lot of the people there weren't very happy about it.
-
I always thought it was definitly hidden and not known at all. :eek:
-
Going to have to agree with Lyn on this one, I've always been under the impression that Karsoth's sins were hidden.
Just as the most recent blunder of Our Beloved Empress(tm) involving several ripe, young handmaidens and their inability to contain their lusts seems to have been kept on the down low (because believe me, if word of it got out there'd be a massive revolt). I haven't read the book (I avoid them) but I wouldn't be surprised if that particular paladin met an early end out of "necessity."
-
I always thought it was definitly hidden and not known at all. :eek:
Same. O_o Considering that there were royal houses literally ready to take off Karsoth's head by the end, I'd think any hint of anything untoward would be jumped on and become a seriously big dealtm.
-
Going to have to agree with Lyn on this one, I've always been under the impression that Karsoth's sins were hidden.
Just as the most recent blunder of Our Beloved Empress(tm) involving several ripe, young handmaidens and their inability to contain their lusts seems to have been kept on the down low (because believe me, if word of it got out there'd be a massive revolt). I haven't read the book (I avoid them) but I wouldn't be surprised if that particular paladin met an early end out of "necessity."
Yeah. If it'd been known that Karsoth was buddy-buddy with the Covenant, he wouldn't have been able to waddle fast enough to escape the hellfire that would've been after his flabby ass.
As far as Jamyl the Spacelesbian Empress™ goes, I haven't read T1 either, but my understanding is that the event took place many many years ago - well prior to EVE's release? Someone who's read the book would have to verify, but it was implied that Jamyl was young enough at the time that "lol, kids" could possibly have been used as an excuse to sweep it under the carpet if word of it had gotten out - or failing that, just calling it a dirty rumor started by unscrupulous journalists with nothing better to do.
-
My memory is that there were servants and guards all over the place when Karsoth was being all unpleasant.
/me shrugs
I don't want to know badly enough to read it again.
-
Indeed, but the sorts of people that would be servants and guards to the Chamberlain are unlikely to go blabbing to the Amarr Times about what their boss does, right?
-
Indeed, but the sorts of people that would be servants and guards to the Chamberlain are unlikely to go blabbing to the Amarr Times about what their boss does, right?
I don't disagree with that, but that's different from saying that nobody else knew what was going on, at least in a general way. I think it's more likely there would be rumours like "don't let your daughters work for Karsoth, if you can help it" along with knowing nods and slight shudders.
Maybe they said "Without incontrovertible evidence we're not going to bring it up", maybe they said "He's too powerful to do anything about at the moment", maybe they said "As long as he's being mostly discreet, we don't care, they're only slaves". If the last was more common, then why wouldn't other holders with less extreme predilections do the same?
In any case, it's not something I'm going to die in a ditch over, as I said in my original comment
TEA, (I know, I know) ...
is all the defence you needed ...
-
We could have a whole discussion on its own about household news-sharing and informants. I have some theories about it, and about how discretion and infiltration work in a world with much less privacy than we're used to, but not enough to say definitively.
I think where we're up to is that it's clearly possible for people of even the highest ranks among the True Amarr to have sex with a slave. Falling for a slave is, however, beneath their dignity (and leads to the usual crises over duty, affection, lust, etc).
Also, what, precisely, would be the problem with Jamyl's teenage experiment with cryllisium before her father's funeral? I've heard cries of outrage about how it makes her unsuitable, but it seems to be one of the more innocuous ways of sowing one's wild oats. It's within her household, with little chance of public or dynastic consequences. It's somewhat context-inappropriate, but not disastrously so. Anyone want to fill in what I've missed?
-
It Is Unrighteous.
-
It Is Unrighteous.
Is it?
( ;) )
By the way, about the "maidens" attending Jamyl during her grieving: "Some were True Amarr and others were of Minmatar descent."
Slaves? A mix of slaves and the daughters of Sarum Holders? Handmaiden Kameiras?
-
Since we're constantly using RL as a reference here.
Would YOU fuck someone who has no free will and has to do anything you say?
Would YOUR social circle approve of such a practice or not?
Would YOU vote for a politician who does such a thing?
In other words, do YOU fuck your household furry animals, plushies or regular?
Do YOU fuck retarded people just because they are easier to manipulate?
Whenever YOU have a position of power, do YOU abuse it?
It seems like there is a several OOC issues displayed in this thread, some as jest some not.
1.) Amarrians are fundamentally Evil.
They're not, they're regular people doing the best that they know.
Just like any person who has taken part in an activity that has been perceived as an atrocity by posterity.
There is no Good or Evil, THAT is a fundamentalist concept that has nothing to do with the real world.
2.) Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts completely.
Neither assumption is true when it comes to Amarrians.
Because of religion, there is only one absolute power and that is God.
And he is always watching.
Corruption only creeps in if the indoctrination of the individual to the culture and the society has failed.
Such an individual would not be able to get to a place of power unless they are socio/psychopaths (like in real world.)
3.) Everything that TonyG has written is somehow portraying New Eden in a truthful way.
It is fiction, it is a space opera.
All storytellers respect the truth so much that they rarely bother with it.
4.) Retcons have somehow made the Lore more cohesive and Right.
Bullshit.
If there is something what they have done, they have made it less cohesive and even harder to decypher.
By adding more tidbits of information that conflict with other tidbits of information.
Whenever Jamyl is brought up I facepalm.
In the succession trials, she was an accomplished Naval officer in a society that has lengthened lifespans for its nobility and glorifies age.
I would expect the Heirs be in the same age bracket.
Which would probably mean that she was over a century old, just like the other Heirs.
Hence Istvaan wanting to see her naked is sooooo hilarious.
-
It's clearly a touchy subject.
IRL I think it's great that you find the idea of sex in situations where consent cannot be freely given to be offensive, abhorrent and downright icky.
In EVE, I explore societies which often have features which I would not want IRL. One of the challenges is to shape societies which make sense and manage to function, given the starting points of "people", "settings and resources", and in some cases "initial meme-sets". An Amarrian society where sex with slaves is not that big a deal for the dominant members of the society is plausibly consistent with what we know of these starting points. As a roleplayer I'm pretty culturally relativist about that: it's internally consistent. It's also (depressingly, but also intriguingly) what tends to happen when you have that kind of structural power relationship.
I'm not sure where this leaves our ideas of Amarrians. I'd been trying to look at them on their own terms, and from their own frame of reference. (And then turn it all around to see it as a Minmatar.) I'm getting the sense that that's not enough for you, and you'd like something that felt non-icky to you as a player. Is this the case?
(Ulf's first ever EVE character was Amarrian. He biomassed it once he learnt about the lore on slavery. I understand and respect his position, although I don't share it.)
-
That sounds to me like an OOC/IC bleedover issue on your part. I don't even think lallara did any reference to players feelings here, but merely about Amarrians as a culture, nothing more.
An Amarrian society where sex with slaves is not that big a deal for the dominant members of the society is plausibly consistent with what we know of these starting points.
It is ?
-
That sounds to me like an OOC/IC bleedover issue on your part. I don't even think lallara did any reference to players feelings here, but merely about Amarrians as a culture, nothing more.
Lyn, how do you read the bit where lallara says:
Since we're constantly using RL as a reference here.
Would YOU fuck someone who has no free will and has to do anything you say?
Would YOUR social circle approve of such a practice or not?
Would YOU vote for a politician who does such a thing?
In other words, do YOU fuck your household furry animals, plushies or regular?
Do YOU fuck retarded people just because they are easier to manipulate?
Whenever YOU have a position of power, do YOU abuse it?
Honest question: I don't know Lall or have tone-of-voice to go on, and the rhetorical techniques being used are open to misinterpretation.
-
I don't understand. I read it as it is.
Would you do all of these things RL just like that ?
-
In other words, do YOU fuck your household furry animals, plushies or regular?
New Zealand, where men are men and sheep are nervous ...
Trans-tasman stereotypes aside, sex with chattel, both four- and two-legged, is far from uncommon in human cultures.
-
That sounds to me like an OOC/IC bleedover issue on your part. I don't even think lallara did any reference to players feelings here, but merely about Amarrians as a culture, nothing more.
Lyn, those were pretty explicit references to players' OOC feelings, complete with CAPITAL LETTERS.
So you are wrong in this case.
-
I don't understand your reasoning. :(
Of course it refers to players OOC feelings. Lallara will correct me if im wrong but I read it as a way to ask if people would do IRL all these things that people assume Holders generally do. The point was about Amarrians being like everyone else.
But I may be wrong, heh. That's just how I understood it.
-
Lyn, you're literally contradicting yourself. If "it refers to players OOC feelings", then how can you say, "I don't even think lallara did any reference to players feelings here"?
-
The style of argument does come off as rather aggressive. The point of people bringing up RL examples is that many people throughout history placed in positions similar to Amarrian holders have done fairly beastly things. The repeated all-caps "Would YOU.." read rather like accusations; as if pointing out serious abuse is a real thing that happens wherever people are in a position of powerlessness is tantamount to admitting you'd wield the whip (or whip out your dick) yourself.
Argument's dodgy in other places, too. Prisons are littered with Christian murderers, despite that pesky 7th commandment - not that I'm trying to say Christianity leads to murder, mind. Just that in many situations, despite the best efforts of religion, morality, police or humanism, humans can be fairly horrible, and having absolute authority over the lives of a bunch of people on the bottom rung of the social ladder is just such a situation.
-
My personal assessment is that it's definitely a breeding ground for immoral activity and heinous behaviors and I would never deny that such things probably happen and happen pretty regularly given the scale of the Empire and how many people are in it.
However, I'd attest that it's not a majority thing and it's certainly not "the way it's supposed to be" from the Amarr perspective. I'd like to believe that the Amarr are well intending but misguided in how they approach it (ie: slavery at all).
-
Lyn, you're literally contradicting yourself. If "it refers to players OOC feelings", then how can you say, "I don't even think lallara did any reference to players feelings here"?
Inaccuracy of language. I am actually not but I understand why you think so.
Lallara was pointing out that people are the prey of their feelings and then got back to an analogy related to the subject (amarrians and slavery). This is why I said his point is not about people's feelings. Am I wrong ? Did I read it wrong ?
-
It sure seems that way to me. I don't believe you can have it both ways, Lyn.
Azdan/Mal/Raze (I never know what to call you anymore dude :P ), my impression is that it's not The Way Things Should Be. That is, according to the letter of the law, I'd assume It Is Unrighteous. But I also assume that, similar to the American South and many other situations where somebody is in a position of power over people who, for whatever reason, cannot or believe they cannot prevent it, it happens far more than any of us would like to admit.
I also believe that your average Amarrian, including capsuleers, would find it reprehensible when discovered and try to do something about it.
(Apologies to Synthia et al. for stealing their schtick. ;) )
-
Bingo Casiella! That's precisely what I was trying to articulate, thank you.
-
Since we're constantly using RL as a reference here.
Would YOU fuck someone who has no free will and has to do anything you say?
Would YOUR social circle approve of such a practice or not?
Would YOU vote for a politician who does such a thing?
In other words, do YOU fuck your household furry animals, plushies or regular?
Do YOU fuck retarded people just because they are easier to manipulate?
Whenever YOU have a position of power, do YOU abuse it?
Well, no, I wouldn't. But then, I think slavery is abhorrent, and people who think its a good thing to keep slaves might have other practices i think are abhorrent.
Historically, it doesn't seem that uncommon that cultures that kept a lot of slaves also had a lot of sexual activity with their slaves, even the cultures where slavery was not nearly as bad as the worst ways of being a slave.
I mean take Iceland, which appeared to treat its slaves merely as second class citizens than as chattel with no rights. About 68% of the mitochondrial DNA of modern Icelanders can be traced back to the British isles (where they captured quite a few of their slaves), while 75% of the Y chromosome DNA can be traced back to Scandinavia. That suggests there was a fair bit of sex going on. We know the Romans did it, we know the US slave owners did it...
Are you aware of any slave owning culture where it didn't happen?
-
Cas, seems like Lyn understood my intentions.
You did not.
There is a few main differences between any real life example of slavery and what slavery is with the Amarrians.
The level of education/literacy in the culture that it is happening.
The fact that the Amarrians are living in a culture with very good primary education when it comes to moral issues.
The abuse towards slaves in the South can easily be explained by the facts that everyone involved in slavery, even by modern standards, badly educated and living in a society where it was quite easy to control the travel of information. It is much likely for the lines of morality be fudged when you are a days travel from your closest neighbour, there has not been any kind of formal education in the whole county and you have no other entertainment than to get drunk and fuck something.
Low standards of education, isolation and no entertainment.
By ANY modern standards would that time and age be called civilized?
No.
Women were raped in marriages, domestic violence was rampant and it was quite common for a young man to die if he went out drinking, he was lucky if he was shanghaied to a ship. Duels were legal and you could die anywhere at any time if you were unlucky.
You take the worst parts of Deadwood and enhance the barbarism by a few decades or centuries.
Then the difference between then and 'now'.
I would think that all the Four Factions would be seen as civilized by modern standards.
Including the Amarr, including the Minmatar, the Gallente and the Caldari.
Which would mean that each faction has failsafes that deal with corruption among the powerful,
where there is an efficient police force that keeps all kinds of crime rates down,
where there is personal freedom if you follow the societys rules,
where there is some sort of welfare system that does not leave the citizens dying in the streets,
the list could go on for quite some time.
The key word is civilized.
To me civilized means that during your primary education you are socialized into your society so that you live by the ethic standards that enable for more advanced societies to survive.
The biggest part of this socialization is putting that little voice in your head that says 'No its not a good idea to steal shit' or go on a bovine raping rampage.
To say a future society that we would consider civilized would have its people acting nonchalantly towards breaking some of the fundamental rules of the society to me seems a tad unbelievable.
Also the issue has been touched about how well does the information about what the people in the Empire do travel to others within the Empire.
I would think that it travels to the religious authorities quite well (Ministry of Internal Order) but not to the common population (ACN).
The God is watching, with the little help of Big Brother and all the nice little informants that want to move up the ladder in the society.
So in the Amarrian society we would have.
Quite high educational standards when it comes to moral issues, no real isolation to commit atrocities without anyone finding out and a lot more chances for wholesome entertainment.
The fact that there is sex mentioned between a master and a slave in the PF, with abuse or not, with about six powerful individuals... it leaves several trillion within the Empire that are not perverts.
I'm just getting tired of this whole issue...
-
Cas, seems like Lyn understood my intentions.
You did not.
<snip>
I would think that all the Four Factions would be seen as civilized by modern standards.
Including the Amarr, including the Minmatar, the Gallente and the Caldari.
What you say and what you mean are not always the same, as in this case.
Also, if your entire argument rests on the fact that you think that the Amarrians (and everyone else) would be "civilized" by your lights, then it really comes down to your personal opinion. Which is fine for your own RP, but as you say, it's a tiring issue because you insist that it's a certain way because you want to believe it's that way.
-
And you want to believe that Amarrians are fundamentally evil.
-
Since we're constantly using RL as a reference here.
Would YOU fuck someone who has no free will and has to do anything you say?
Would YOUR social circle approve of such a practice or not?
Would YOU vote for a politician who does such a thing?
It's also worth remembering that in British legal jurisdictions (the UK and the Commonwealth countries) as well as many other European nations, married women
* had no right to reside anywhere but with their husband, and if they left him without his permission he or his agents could retrieve her by force
*could own no property or possess any money
*had no legal identity and could not bring any legal action against any person
*had not right to refuse to have sex with their husband
until a series of legal reforms gradually changed the situation through the 19th and 20th centuries.
In some Australian jurisdictions, it was still impossible to prosecute a man for raping his wife in the 1970s because legally, she could not refuse to have sex with him.
Throughout all this period, very many married men continued to fuck their wives, a practice thoroughly approved by their social circle, and many of those men were elected to high office.
-
And you want to believe that Amarrians are fundamentally evil.
To the extent that I'm comfortable attributing motives to anyone.. I think Casi wants to believe that the Amarr are human.
-
Cas, seems like Lyn understood my intentions.
You did not.
There is a few main differences between any real life example of slavery and what slavery is with the Amarrians.
The level of education/literacy in the culture that it is happening.
The fact that the Amarrians are living in a culture with very good primary education when it comes to moral issues.
The abuse towards slaves in the South can easily be explained by the facts that everyone involved in slavery, even by modern standards, badly educated and living in a society where it was quite easy to control the travel of information. It is much likely for the lines of morality be fudged when you are a days travel from your closest neighbour, there has not been any kind of formal education in the whole county and you have no other entertainment than to get drunk and fuck something.
This argument is obviously historically ignorant, and a bit offensive and biased.
The Greek and Roman slave holders were certainly urbane, sophisticated, and educated, certainly by their standards and likely by the standards of todays mediocre levels of mass education. They were quite skilled in rhetoric, mathematics, history, philosophy, morality and culture.
They still fucked their slaves.
Regarding the American South, and how "uneducated" it was as it applies to the plantation owners.
To say that every plantation owner was uneducated and an ignorant barbarian means you literally have no idea what youre talking about when it comes to the slave owning class of the American South. For example...
Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant and well educated man. Vast intellect, well versed in rhetoric, philosophy, and the classics. An accomplished architect and knowledgeable in natural sciences. Did long treatises on morality and values, government and popular and inherent rights. He founded one of the top 15 or so Universities in the U.S. (University of Virginia), and by extension one of the better universities in the world. He traveled the world both for education and as a diplomat. Even his British enemies held his academic accomplishments and writings in high regard. He's likely on the short list for most influencial political thinkers the world over (i.e. if you live in a country with any kind of constitution or explicit government compact, its influenced at least in part by his ideas)
He was certainly smarter and better educated than you or I.
He still fucked his slaves.
Knowledge and education is absolutely no cure for humans acting like humans.
-
Our problem is not that the amarr are human or not, our problem is that people seem to assume that the amarr are somehow stuck in a post medieval age. In the age of high-tech information technology, camera drones, nano technology, medias ; ACN is from the lore, and it indicates that amarrians behave like use everyday, they watch TV, news, and benefit of a lot of social comfort that any sci fy civilization would have.
@Gotti : nobody is saying that Amarr never fuck their slaves. No more than these days it would be stupid to say that nobody gets raped in the street or whatever...
-
@Gotti : nobody is saying that Amarr never fuck their slaves. No more than these days it would be stupid to say that nobody gets raped in the street or whatever...
No, the argument is that the Amarr dont abuse their slaves because theyre smarter and better educated than past slave holders. Im saying that 1.) thats unduly dismissive to the education levels of abusive slavers and slave owners in the past and 2.) there is zero indication that simply being smart, educated and knowledgeable means you wont abuse your slaves, or anyone else for that matter.
-
They're a wonderfully advanced future society. That is also a slave-keeping theocracy ruled by hereditary nobility. Straight extrapolation from current societal norms seems a little.. unthematic.
-
I've never said the Amarrians are fundamentally evil. To the contrary, see my reply above that clarified, extended, and agreed with ArtOfLight.
My point is that we cannot base our views on one person's hope that the future is more civilized than today. I certainly hope it is, but then I personally hope for a future that resembles the Gallente Federation more than the Caldari State.
-
And you want to believe that Amarrians are fundamentally evil.
To the extent that I'm comfortable attributing motives to anyone.. I think Casi wants to believe that the Amarr are human.
Both OOC and IC I'd be inclined to go with human rather than evil.
My character feels that if the empire wishes people to convert, then slaving is a bad way of going about it when dealing with equivalent or better tech groups. He also feels that the production of splinter groups like the Sani Sabik and the EoM say some very telling and uncomplimentary things about Amarrian theology. However he also accepts that most Imperials honestly believe in what they are doing.
So he will kill who he has to in defence of his society and it's values, but given he is fighting other capsuleers killing is not enough. To truly win one must change the enemy's own point of view (or arrange to have all their clones destroyed). And Imperial theology has changed over the centuries, as far as I can tell this is even acknowledged IC.
OOC given what we know about the people that became the Amarr. The original prophet comes over as either deluded or a self-centred maniac. Also the start of Athran slavery reads like a self-interest and protecting power thing rather than anything moral. The moral justifications seem to have been added later.
I also get the idea IC & OOC that the upper end of the society tends to treat the religion as a tool rather than something to be taken seriously. I will freely admit that is my bias though.
-
I went to sleep wondering if I'd had a comprehension fail while reading lallara's post. I think to some extent I might have, since the first and second parts seem to have quite different messages.
I describe Amarrian society as being like X, Y and Z.
-- Looked at from within Amarrian society, those things are fine.
-- Looked at from our perspective, those things are horrible.
Am I trying to say Amarrians are evil? I... wasn't even engaging on that level, actually. I'm more interested in whether they're plausible and interesting. Would that be an interesting discussion, or would it turn into sound and fury?
I'll mention here that I play a Matari clan which fails my own real-world legal and ethical requirements. This isn't a case of trying to paint the IC opposition as bad: it's exploring the different ways in which humans live, together and individually.
-
The reference to education during history was not clearly meaning the elite of the society.
The elite of the society has always been well educated, but has the elite been the ones swinging the whip and fucking the slaves. (I know that fucking slaves seemed to be the favourite pastime in the South, why the hell would most of the African Americans have at least 12.5% Caucasian DNA in them.)
Rarely.
I meant it as the average level of education within the society, which was piss poor in Rome and in the South at the time of slavery.
I may be a tad naive, but I don't think that being human entails anything that is perceived as Evil.
Abuse of self and others, murder, suicide, addiction...
I think that 'the dark side' is something banal, animal like, something that only comes out if a person has been taught wrong ways of dealing with things by the family, society, culture and the school system.
There is nothing wrong with emotions that are considered destructive, but there is constructive ways of using them or just letting them go.
But for some reason I cannot accept the 'fact' that it is 'human' to abuse power.
Some acts take you out of the human category to the animal category.
-
I think Ciarente has a point
Most of human history woman were not much more than property of a man, no one was considering that if their man raped them that it was rape and and so on.
Does from that follow that the same is true for all societies that know marriage between man and woman?
I hope current societies - well, some of them at least - show that those things can change.
If it is true that - even though all human societies up to a certain point in time treated the wives of men like this - it is not true anymore for all societies, than it follows that the same principle has to be applied to slavery:
The fact that many societies had no fuzz with what the slave-owner did with his slaves doesn't mean that a society in the future will treat slaves just the same way.
As Esna argued in the "Mercedes thread (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=1271.msg15442#msg15442)" it is quite probable that sex with slaves is seen as counterproductive to the goal of slavery as seen within the Empire.
As Casiella said there: if the purpose of slavery is enlightenment, then rape does not have a place in the arrangement. And the stated purpose of slavery within the Empire is enlightenment of the slave.
The people who are eligible of holding slaves within the Empire are a minority to begin with and thus they are easily monitored.
If we think of slavery as something not unlike our modern systems for keeping criminals, processing immigrants and caring for disabled people - all systems where people exert control over others, are in positions of power that can be abused - and we ask, if and how many of the people that are in power there do abuse this power for their own gain and abuse their charges - be it prisoners, immigrants or the disabled - I sincerely hope that the answer will be that most civilized modern societies have found mechanisms to keep that from happening or at least to reduce it to a minimum.
Why then should the Amarr not be able to have found such mechanisms? Because earlier cultures holding slaves didn't? That's really as good as denying humans the ability to make (ethical) progress. By that very logic we should expect men to rape their woman and no one caring for it in our societies.
That argument that Amarr do it because "the Romans and Americans did it" does just not click.
-
Nico, my point (and the point of several other people) isn't that Amarrian society says it's okay. Our point is that Amarrian society almost certainly says it's not okay but that it happens in some places anyway.
-
Nico, my point (and the point of several other people) isn't that Amarrian society says it's okay. Our point is that Amarrian society almost certainly says it's not okay but that it happens in some places anyway.
In the Mercedes thread I suggested a stronger case: that a certain amount of in-house sexual activity between Holders and slaves is probably in the "tolerated/okay/expected" part of the spectrum, at least in some Amarrian circles. Since then I've also argued that it doesn't seem to be seen as a perversion, although having an emotional relationship with a slave is something you'd hide.
I'm also totally on-board with people like Esna deciding that this isn't okay and they should be encouraging others to give it up. Sounds fantastic. You get to have the sorts of social-change interactions that people have in the real world about slavery, spanking children, fox hunting and meat-eating. I would love to know that those were going on somewhere in the Amarrian zone. :)
-
There's plenty of modern, civilized societies where sexual abuse occurs against an exploitable class: children.
My understanding of psychological study of the nature of sexual abuse is the driving factor of this activity is rarely sexual gratification, it is power and control.
These two issues go somewhat hand-in-hand. Generally the perpetrator of the abuse is someone in a position of authority over the victim such as parents, teachers, priests, scout leaders, etc. As our society has grown more and more equal (to some degree, anyways), the pool of potentially exploitable people over which this kind of dominance can be exercised has changed.
I think sexual abuse/exploitation probably occurs in all of the EvE cultures, the victims and perpetrators are different depending on the nature of their respective societies. In Ammarian culture, the paradigm is fairly easy to spot and thus gets portrayed and/or presumed to fall into the cliche'.
-
So, the basic argument is: crimes do (at times) happen? (I think that's also what you're saying, basically, Syylara?) That sounds kind'a trivial to me.
And not quite what e.g. Mata implied apparently in her "Mercedes thread" _ indeed it seemed to me that she was making a stronger case here as she just clarified - or what Ulphus was trying to argue for with his Karsoth example.
It seems to me that some people here argue that slavery implies (all kinds of and among them sexual) abuse of the slave or at least that slave abuse (or some kinds of it) is okay by Imperial standards.
So, while it is true that we - or at least most people - today do think of slavery as implying abuse of the slave and while it maybe true that this has been historically correct for long spans of time, it just isn't an analytical truth o- like "a bachelor is a man that isn't married" is.
Just as it isn't an analytical truth that being a wife means that it's okay - by the standards of all societies that know marriage - to be abused by the husband. Whether or not abuse of a slave is okay and to what extent is contingent on as much factors as it is in the case of a woman.
The argument Esna gives does rest on premises that are true for Amarrian slavery for quite some time now. It's kind'a weird to assume that while Amarrians took it for granted that the goal of slavery is the enlightenment of slaves but it occurred to no one that raping slaves might be counterproductive in that regard. At least to me it's more reasonable to assume that Amarr has for some time already mechanisms in place to identify and punish holders that do that to their slaves. After all that's quite central to the idea of slavery which is justified religiously - thus it's probably not something that would be brushed over within the Empire or dealt with lightly.
Religion and it's tenets are srs bznz in Amarr, after all. So, really, I can hardly see how it could be in the "tolerated/okay/expected" part of the spectrum - rather in the "if there's nobody noticing it, there's nobody judging me over it" end of the spectrum and thus maybe in the "it's unfortunately happening more often than the TC and any decent Amarr would wish for - down with this sort of thing!" end of the spectrum.
-
@Gotti : nobody is saying that Amarr never fuck their slaves. No more than these days it would be stupid to say that nobody gets raped in the street or whatever...
No, the argument is that the Amarr dont abuse their slaves because theyre smarter and better educated than past slave holders. Im saying that 1.) thats unduly dismissive to the education levels of abusive slavers and slave owners in the past and 2.) there is zero indication that simply being smart, educated and knowledgeable means you wont abuse your slaves, or anyone else for that matter.
Well, we are probably not reading the same thread then. :eek:
Nico, my point (and the point of several other people) isn't that Amarrian society says it's okay. Our point is that Amarrian society almost certainly says it's not okay but that it happens in some places anyway.
Then everyone agrees with everyone, that's wonderful. \o/
-
It's kind'a weird to assume that while Amarrians took it for granted that the goal of slavery is the enlightenment of slaves but it occurred to no one that raping slaves might be counterproductive in that regard.
Nico, how do you reconcile the Amarrian Breeding Facility (http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=26895) and Breeder Slave (http://eveinfo.com/item/GID17-283-26901/commodity/livestock/breeder-slave.html) descriptions with that position?
(Edited to replace the first link with a more direct database-grab one.)
(Edited again to note that it looks like the Amarrian Breeding Facility isn't a "live" item: it sounds like it was pulled from a DB dump but not actually used in game? I'm not sure how we deal with that sort of stuff as PF, and wouldn't push the case too hard. Breeder Slave commodities are, however, very much canon, and the write-up references breeder colonies.)
(Edited a third time to say that the Amarrian Breeding Facility does seem to have been deployed, and turns up in a Level 5 mission: http://eve-survival.org/wikka.php?wakka=BreedingFacility5 )
-
Well, I don't reconcile it at all. I also oftentimes just shake my head at the inconsistencies of PF a lot.
Also, both seem to have been removed from game. At least I can't find breeder slaves on the market in EVE and none of them in EVElopedia.
Maybe it's been a retcon for consistencies sake?
-
Look, just because something is contrary to the law of the land, or even the spirit, doesnt mean it doesnt happen.
Saying "abuse of slaves doesnt happen because its contrary to the religious laws and beliefs" is like saying "rape doesnt happen in the US or Europe because its contrary to their laws and beliefs." Of course it happens.
Just because something is contrary to public law or sentiment doesnt mean it doesnt happen. Quite the opposite in fact.
But here's what I dont get.
Why does Amarrian slavery need to be good? Or even "okayish"?
EVE is a dark sci-fi world. Dark. Dystopian.
Saying "yes, Amarrian slavery is like current and past slavery, but better" is not Dystopian. Thats Utopian.
Does this mean you cant play an Amarrian correctly and be a good guy? Why yes it does.
But guess what. You cant play anyEVE character correctly and be the good guy.
This is not a game where youre going to be a classic "good guy". The less you try to play the good guy, the more fun you will have.
Can your character be a morally (keep in mind, that would mean he would embody Amarrian morals) upright, thoughtful, kind, even benevolent in thought and motivation and still allow/participate in such an evil institution?
Of course it does. Otherwise good people do bad things all the time. We overlook and rationalize otherwise awful things every day. I didnt really protest or get up in arms regarding the heroic stand and unjust suffering the Syrian civilians and army deserters are facing down, even with the random sniping and artillery barrages. I know I should, but I didnt. (not to say Im a good person, but you get the idea) Im locked in my own little world, just like everyone else. Its part and parcel of being a human being. Its realistic.
Amarrians arent really any worse or better than say the Minmatar. Its just the Minmatar have an objectively more sympathetic and moral stance to our eyes (in the sense that I think we all would agree that anyone has the right to defend themselves from enslavement).
But does that make them the good guys? Not at all. Far from it, in fact.
Slavery should not have to be good to play a "good-guy" Amarrian correctly. In fact, to try to make slavery palatable is and certainly unrealistic and maybe even a tad bit unethical.
If you just allow slavery to be slavery, and build your character from there, its a hell of a lot easier.
Heres what bothers me about how people respond to the Amarr bloc in general and slavery in particular.
There is a lot of real world venom and vitriol regarding hatred toward the Amarr. And really, I dont think its slavery.
I mean, the Angels, Guristas, Serpentis, Blood Raiders, etc are all slavers. How often are they called slavers and hissed and booed in the IGS? Practically never. Indeed, its "cool" to be part of those factions.
My belief is that people react so negatively to the Amarr because they have a chance to strike out against religion.
The Internet is often called "the church of atheism" and you dont have to go far to find people dogging various faiths online, especially Christianity and such. The Amarr happen to be an easy punching bag for that, with slavery the cudgel of choice, and you get a lot of thinly veiled OOC loathing that often finds its way into a lot of anti-Amarrian RP.
I pretty much dislike it. Im pretty much agnostic on the subject, literally and figuratively, but I hate when some Minmatar is all dogging the idea of gods and religion and such. The Minmatar have never been portrayed as atheists. Far from it, if the Voluval is any indication, theyre quite spiritual. Its a war between faiths, not a war about faith.
I think it makes a lot of Amarrian players a bit uncomfortable, they pick up on that, kinda like dentists having the highest suicide rate because everyone loathes seeing them. it certainly would make me defensive.
-
Why does Amarrian slavery need to be obviously evil?
In fact, I'd claim that portraying Amarrian slavery as "like past and current slavery but better" makes it in fact more dystopian and less utopian. The subtle evil, the one that is hard to distinguish from something good makes a much more interesting, thought provoking and shocking thing than the banality of obvious evil.
To be honest, I think that many people - or at least some - arguing against a slavery that is hard to stamp as 'evil' exactly because they're so appaled and shocked by the idea that slavery might be hard to distinguish from things that are good.
P.S.: On the religion issue I agree.
-
+10000 to everything Gottii said
-
Well, I don't reconcile it at all. I also oftentimes just shake my head at the inconsistencies of PF a lot.
Also, both seem to have been removed from game. At least I can't find breeder slaves on the market in EVE and none of them in EVElopedia.
Maybe it's been a retcon for consistencies sake?
Breeder Slave is still in game: check contracts or try auto linking the item name.
Why do you think this is an inconsistency?
-
Why does Amarrian slavery need to be obviously evil?
In fact, I'd claim that portraying Amarrian slavery as "like past and current slavery but better" makes it in fact more dystopian and less utopian. The subtle evil, the one that is hard to distinguish from something good makes a much more interesting, thought provoking and shocking thing than the banality of obvious evil.
To be honest, I think that many people - or at least some - arguing against a slavery that is hard to stamp as 'evil' exactly because they're so appaled and shocked by the idea that slavery might be hard to distinguish from things that are good.
P.S.: On the religion issue I agree.
Well, lets talk about what goes on in Amarrian slavery.
Here's just a sampling of PF regarding Amarrian slavery practices.
The Human Endurance Program : http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Human_Endurance_Program
Highlights include toying with peoples DNA, torturing people until they die simply to test pain tolerance, test subjects "bred like animals", eugenics, and taking innocent children and condemning them to a brutal militaristic life and likely death on a battlefield. (the Kameiras)
Slavery: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Slavery
PF states that slaves are kept under control by one of two basic means: threat of violence or drugs (or TCMCs or such)
We all get that Vitoc is awful. So are the other drugs. But everyone downplays what living in constant fear of punishment, pain and violence is like.
Threatening someone with torture (which is what whipping is, it hurts like hell) is a bad thing. Cruel. Making someone live in fear is cruelty. Its not subtle.
The slave of a "nice" owner likely just isnt thinking "i love my master, I will work hard for him because hes nice". He's likely thinking "I love my master, he's nice, and I will work hard for me, especially because I dont want him to go into financial hard times and sell me to a really mean master, where Im possibly whipped and tortured if I dont perform or if he has a bad day." Its living in fear one degree removed.
In the Slavery PF blurb, it mentions that mining slaves "have a lifespan of weeks".
In this Chronicle http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=apr01-01 "tens of thousands" of Minmatar slaves died to produce one Titan. Thats sacrificing a whole good sized town.
In case you thought slaves liking their Masters were common, in this Chronicle http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=25-12-08-b you'll find the line "It was said in the high halls of Amarr society that Torsad-Laur was the only slave-inhabited quarter where the gentry could walk at night without being attacked – and where, moreover, one could even have a conversation with a slave, if one were inclined toward an evening’s debasement."
Positive interactions between Master and slave seem fairly rare. Violence and fear a lot more common.
And the Amarrians cut off the hands of their own newborns to satisfy an ancient, venal, arbitrary law. Found here: http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=jun01
Read that again. They cut off the hands of their own male newborns. Royal blood. If they will do that to a newborn prince, what are they capable of to do to a slave?
Im sorry Nicoletta, I just cant really see any PF out there that shows the kind of slavery youre defining. If Im missing some, I would love to see any. (no sarcasm, really would)
EDIT: What Mata said. I dont think those linked items are inconsistent at all. In fact they seem to be quite consistent with other PF out there on the subject.
-
So, the basic argument is: crimes do (at times) happen? (I think that's also what you're saying, basically, Syylara?) That sounds kind'a trivial to me.
No, I was describing that sexual abuse (well, abuse in general) happens more frequently to the most exploitable available class of people and that in terms of the cultures presented to us in EVE, the Amarr tend to have a paradigm that people readily and easily understand in this regard.
That means those who might be inclined to portray this behavior are more likely to choose Amarr characters as well as those wishing to inveigh against the behavior will tend to set their sights on them. The other cultures don't have quite the same dichotomous presentation of socioeconomic stratification and so don't provide the same "critical mass" of the same offender-victim paradigm.
I was also making a minor point that while I often see in RP that the sex is the focus of the issue, the real phenomenon is much more complex. In sexual abuse, sex is a choice of weapon used and is an extension (admittedly perhaps more depraved) of abuse in general. The goal is not to beat on someone in physical abuse, the goal is not sexual release in sexual abuse. The goal is to deprive another person of security, self-determination, sense of well-being and such that they will ultimately 'break' and capitulate (or in some cases simply be incapable of overpowering their attacker enough to successfully resist)...as I said, it is about power and control.
-
I mean, the Angels, Guristas, Serpentis, Blood Raiders, etc are all slavers. How often are they called slavers and hissed and booed in the IGS? Practically never. Indeed, its "cool" to be part of those factions.
I've been pretty anti the Angels, Serps and Sansha for this specific reason (Angels more than others because they're local) for years. It just happens that I don't post on IGS all that often, and my anti- mostly comes down to not talking to them.
But internal to various internal forums in EM, I've long argued that ex-angel pilots should be at least as scrutinised as ex-amarr pilots.
-
Mata:
So, okay, there are 5 Breeder Slaves in all EVE buyable. Seems to me like some leftovers CCP didn't mind to get rid of.
So, do I think it's an inconsistency? Honestly I haven't put too much thought into it. It might as well be one. It's not that EVE PF is without inconsistencies, if you see what I'm pointing at here.
My point isn't that slave abuse can't happen in the Empire. Nor that it needs to be good. My point is that Slavery isn't something that analytically implies abuse and that there is good reason to assume that within the Empire it's not accepted to casually bang your slaves when you feel like it.
There might be reason to assume otherwise, though I think it's less compelling. That the Romans and and some other cultures did it, isn't an argument that leads to the conclusion that the Amarr are doing it, too. If anything, it shows that it is possible. But it's also possible that some tribal cultures revere purple cows as gods sending miraculous food from the world above - e.g. cargo cults. Now, that doesn't mean that Matari tribals are revering purple cows as godlike entities.
I think in the end it boils down to personal preference what stance one takes.
-
Gottii:
As to threats of violence and isolation: What do you think how prisoners are kept in line? In what light is the system of rehabilitating prisoners usually depicted in modern societies?
I think there's a distinction between 'nice' and 'good'.
Also, just because the Amarr do some things that qualify as slave abuse and accept them socially, it doesn't mean that they do necessarily do the things that are not mentioned and qualify as well as abuse are equally accepted in Amarrian society.
-
Syylara:
So you were aiming at giving an explanation why the theme is so prevalent among the Amarr? In that case I'd say you're certainly onto something.
It's also not saying too much about how we should think about Amarr society, but more about why we (or many people) think about it as we do.
-
I mean, the Angels, Guristas, Serpentis, Blood Raiders, etc are all slavers. How often are they called slavers and hissed and booed in the IGS? Practically never. Indeed, its "cool" to be part of those factions.
I've been pretty anti the Angels, Serps and Sansha for this specific reason (Angels more than others because they're local) for years. It just happens that I don't post on IGS all that often, and my anti- mostly comes down to not talking to them.
But internal to various internal forums in EM, I've long argued that ex-angel pilots should be at least as scrutinised as ex-amarr pilots.
Yeah, you were always the One True Believer in that kinda thing.
I tried my best to keep that up too.
Gottii was friendly-ish with Guristas because 1.) he saw them at eating at the underbelly of the State, an enemy of the People.
and 2.) IIRC Old PF stated the Guristas did everything but slavery.
Now, its been retconned, and Im kinda meh about it. Ill probably have Gottii keep taking fashion tips from Verone and allow it to be grandfathered in (and Gottii certainly has it in him to be a hypocrite just like everyone else).
-
My point is that Slavery isn't something that analytically implies abuse
Thats just it. I dont think you can rationally define slavery as anything other than abuse.
Slavery is bad. Its abusive. Always. By definition. There is no "good" slavery. Or even neutral. Treating people like property and forcing them to do what you want is morally wrong. Always.
Can we all agree on that? I mean, as real life people.
(and no BDSM defense please, just...no)
-
Honestly, I do think that one can define slavery as something other than abuse. It's been done in history.
Now, one could argue that someone doing this just didn't know what he was talking about or was talking about something else than slavery. But then one could also say that nowadays we redefined it in a way not compatible with earlier conceptions.
I think, though, that the question of whether slavery is good or bad merely hinges on the question whether it implies abuse by necessity or not. There are many other good reasons to say that slavery is bad.
Still, at times we should think on the fact that we know certain institutions nowadays that aren't so far away from how some of the definitions from antiquity defined the institution of slavery. That, I think, is really stuff for thought.
-
Honestly, I do think that one can define slavery as something other than abuse. It's been done in history.
Can I see examples of this?
Im not saying there havent been less egregious versions of slavery, but I think its all part of a spectrum with "humiliation, lack of self-determination and no social status, but at least youre not beaten every day and you might get to be free one day" on one end with "pure utter unadulterated heinous evil" on the other.
But Im going to ask for sources if you say there have ever been example of slavery that we would all rationally view as "yeah, thats actually kinda nice"
Im sorry Nic, but if youre going to say that there is moral and beneficial forms of real life slavery, I think our differences of opinion extend a bit beyond EVE RP on this.
-
I'm not saying that I think that there's a 'nice version' of slavery or even a good one. I'm saying that there are definitions of slavery that don't imply that the slave in question is abused.
And that even if that is so and a definition of slavery can be given that doesn't imply abuse of the slave, that there are probably other reasons to object to slavery.
As for an example: http://www.cleverley.org/areopagus/docs/aristotle/aribk1_4_6.html
I recommend also considering the commentary.
-
I think it's a thing of majority desire vs. minority acts.
Some people like to see the Empire's practice of slavery as the majority desiring being the faithful conversion of the Minmatar, with some minority indeed doing very bad things to their charges.
Some people like to see the Empire's practice of slavery as a means to abuse and provide a free and easily exploited underclass, with some minority actually intending to care for and uplift their charges.
How you view it decides how you regard things like Breeder slaves and how widespread abuse is.
I, personally, take the former view.
But why does this mean abuse wasn't totally widespread?
For me, I see it as a simple logical progression.
If you make someone's life a living hell, they are more inclined to commit acts of disobedience to spite you. They will do this despite the fact that they intellectually realize it will result in punishment - up to and including death - on themselves and possibly any associates as a matter of group punishments. I can present many examples of prisons in which increased harsh treatment lead to increased rates of "acting out", and vice versa - as well as more extreme examples, which I'll leave out for the sake of not turning this into a RL politics argument. The point is, if you don't want to have to be watching over all of your charges every single second of their existence, you don't abuse the hell out of them.
On Vitoc
One thing that always nags me when Vitoc is brought up is the fact that extended use of Vitoc literally makes you stupid. No joke.
Studies of Vitoc-Vitoxin interaction in animal brain structures (particularly rats) have also shown a marked diminishing of cognitive function - memory loss and an apparent reduction in basic problem solving skills. These have been tentatively linked to a reduced blood supply in the brain as cranial blood vessels become choked with excess serotonogenic nerve growth.
Okay, so "makes you stupid" is maybe an overstatement, but the point is clear: Vitoc is not a means of control to be used for anyone expecting a slave to be released or "graduate" to a new position. It places inherent limits on a slave's future capabilities even should the immediate need for the Vitoc antidote be removed. Therefore, to me, it doesn't seem like something you'd be dishing out to any and all of your slave population, but merely something you would be giving to the limited numbers who are for various reasons not expected to possibly stand out enough to advance.
EDIT:
Another thought.
I think we really need to get a solid definition of "abuse" here.
To borrow the terms Mata defined, the "Mercedes" crowd often argue that a slave is not abused; they do this with the understanding that "abuse" refers to explicit torture, personal damage, rape, etc. They argue that this cannot be the experience of all slaves, because for various reasons that just doesn't make sense - you don't whip your slave for no reason, as it destroys the meaning of the "stick" end of "carrot and stick".
The "Clammy" crowd then argue that even under the least violent Holders, Slaves still have terrible personal living conditions and work under the threat of ill treatment. Thus, they say, the slaves are still abused.
Until we can get a recognition of these two conflicting viewpoints, I don't think a resolution can be found.
-
re Vitoc: I always thought the people who said they were using it on space-ship crews didn't make much sense. I mean, working in a demanding, technical, and potentially lethal environment like space while slightly stoned doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
Back in the days when the British navy would pressgang people, they tended to treat them with pretty fierce discipline, and rely on the fact that, once you're miles out to sea, or in a fight, if you didn't do exactly what you were told, the chances of making it home again went down.
I don't see why that wouldn't work on slave crews as well, unless their base state of treatment was so bad that they're prepared to suicide to get out of it.
-
re Vitoc: I always thought the people who said they were using it on space-ship crews didn't make much sense. I mean, working in a demanding, technical, and potentially lethal environment like space while slightly stoned doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
Back in the days when the British navy would pressgang people, they tended to treat them with pretty fierce discipline, and rely on the fact that, once you're miles out to sea, or in a fight, if you didn't do exactly what you were told, the chances of making it home again went down.
I don't see why that wouldn't work on slave crews as well, unless their base state of treatment was so bad that they're prepared to suicide to get out of it.
Interestingly, the British Navy also relied on keeping their crews slightly drunk all the time ...
-
re Vitoc: I always thought the people who said they were using it on space-ship crews didn't make much sense. I mean, working in a demanding, technical, and potentially lethal environment like space while slightly stoned doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
Back in the days when the British navy would pressgang people, they tended to treat them with pretty fierce discipline, and rely on the fact that, once you're miles out to sea, or in a fight, if you didn't do exactly what you were told, the chances of making it home again went down.
I don't see why that wouldn't work on slave crews as well, unless their base state of treatment was so bad that they're prepared to suicide to get out of it.
Interestingly, the British Navy also relied on keeping their crews slightly drunk all the time ...
Point.
-
My belief is that people react so negatively to the Amarr because they have a chance to strike out against religion.
The Internet is often called "the church of atheism" and you dont have to go far to find people dogging various faiths online, especially Christianity and such. The Amarr happen to be an easy punching bag for that, with slavery the cudgel of choice, and you get a lot of thinly veiled OOC loathing that often finds its way into a lot of anti-Amarrian RP.
+1
I think that in the unlikely event of there being a rpg set in crusade-era Palestine, there'd be people being atheists in it. :|
-
I think sexual abuse/exploitation probably occurs in all of the EvE cultures, the victims and perpetrators are different depending on the nature of their respective societies. In Ammarian culture, the paradigm is fairly easy to spot and thus gets portrayed and/or presumed to fall into the cliche'.
Correct.
I assume that sexual abuse happens in the Empire and the Kingdom. I assume that this abuse typically happens because one person has power over the other. Holders and slave-keepers have power over slaves, so Holders and slave-keepers likely sexually assault slaves.
I doubt, however, that the Empire and the Kingdom have the highest rate of sexual assault. The Minmatar have endemic poverty and high levels of social disorder, both of which tend to lead to a large increase in the amount of sexual assault. The Caldari’s de-emphasis of the rights of the individual and ‘don’t rock the boat’ attitude could easily lead to situations where there was long-term sexual abuse in the military or a factory and no one is willing to speak up because they don’t want to be the trouble-maker.
The Federation probably has the lowest amount of sexual assault and abuse, but I can see particularly rich or famous people getting away with things that are illegal.
But if you looked at RP, you’d think that rape was something that almost only happened in Amarr and only between Holders and slaves.
-
Yes, that's exactly the problem, other factions don't have their badness played up enough.
Agreed.
Also, sorry if I was doing it wrong with that children drawing a penis on a wall and starting a discussion that I found interesting about honor-killings.
It's not the penis-on-the-wall specifically. It's just logging in and hearing another '...and this is a horrible thing a Holder did...' I'm sorry if you feel I'm picking on you.
As for the honor-killings, there's no reason why people from the Empire or Kingdom would be prone to honor-killings. In the real-world, that springs from cultures that believe women must be sexually pure, that sexuality in women stains the honor of the family, and that it's the duty of men to police and punish female sexuality or independence.
There is no such dynamic in Amarr culture. There may be general sexual repression, but men do not murder their daughters/sisters/cousins for dressing inappropriately.
-
The Federation probably has the lowest amount of sexual assault and abuse, but I can see particularly rich or famous people getting away with things that are illegal.
Interestingly, according to my country's Bureau of Statistics, the highest risk socio-economic groups for sexual assault are the lowest and the highest band.
If I recall my PF correctly, the Federation has the largest gap between rich and poor, and many Federation citizens live in conditions of poverty that other cultures find apalling.
But I agree with the thrust of your post. Every human society to date has contained a small number of individuals who commit sexual assaults against others. I find it implausible that such behaviour would occur in one, and only one, future culture.
-
I find it implausible that such behaviour would occur in one, and only one, future culture.
Agreed. Has anyone suggested it does?
We have a significant reporting bias, for reasons which are supported by lore.
-
I would suggest the reporting bias may stem more from some player's perceptions on the one hand and some player's decisions on the other.
-
I would suggest the reporting bias may stem more from some player's perceptions on the one hand and some player's decisions on the other.
Could you elaborate on that?
I'm trying to think of other interactions which people might raise publicly in podder forums. Maybe rape as part of the occupations in the Gallente-Caldari wars? Just... it's not something that would have affected nearly as many people over nearly as much time.
-
I still don't understand.
Why does slavery equate all kinds of abuse?
To me slavery pretty much means that in a society there is people that have no social status and therefore they can be owned and they have no free will, the owner decides all aspects of the slaves life.
If the slave disobeys the owner can do whatever they want to enforce their will upon the slave within the rules of the society concerning the treatment of slaves.
Very much like with livestock or pets.
Livestock can be mistreated in pretty much any society as long as the end that the livestock has been bred for is attained.
Be it cows, sheep, chickens, pigs or horses.
They are all mistreated, from the industrially bred flesh providing pigs to prized equine performers.
Only rules of that the society puts on the mistreatment of such animals is if the quality of meat suffers or the performance of the prized animal in the public.
The same applies pretty much for pets as well.
They are constantly being mistreated by their owners, most of the owners use them as tools for emotional projection and when they do not comply in the right way they get punished.
Only when the pets become so emotionally scarred that they become a danger to the public the society interferes.
I can understand the mistreatment that goes on with livestock and pets taken into the context of slavery.
I can also understand the moral outrage that such mistreatment causes in some people that choose to go on a crusade against something like that and choose for moral reasons to be vegetarian and wear nothing but plant fibers and whatnot.
What I cannot understand that how sexual abuse comes into the picture when slavery is the issue in New Eden.
To the Amarrians the slaves are livestock, at best they are favoured pets.
Boinking an animal just does not compute.
-
The prevalence of the 'my holder touches/touched me' meme was raised in the discussion on Summit moderation. A bit like the spacelesbian phenomenon, the cumulative effect of a whole lot of independent RP decisions about what a character experienced in slavery is an avalanche of similar stories.
As far as some player's OOC perceptions are concerned, I think the long-standing popular narrative of 'white slavery' and modern media emphasis on sex-trafficing has educated many of us to the idea that slavery is for sexual purposes (which then ties into decisions people make about their character backstories of course) while the under-reporting of, or dismissing of, sexual assaults by acquaintances, in the workplace or in military organisations mean such possibilities are less likely to occur to players creating stories or backstories.
And Lall, people do actually boink animals rather more than most of us would like to think. As a country doctor sometime about transmission vectors on STDs ...
-
The problem for me is the abuse.
I think at the moment it is quite well established that abused become abusers.
If Amarrians are abusers, then it means that their whole society is tainted with sexual abuse (priests fucking little boys meme rears its ugly head.)
If the slaves are abused, they abuse their children as well, which would suggest that sexual abuse is rampant among the freed slaves in the Republic.
It may be just me, but I would like to think that RP in EVE would not just be themed by sexual abuse and that CCP would have created the PF to avoid that.
-
The average victim of sexual assault or abuse does not go on to assault or abuse another person. In the real world, only about one in ten male victims appear to do so, and I assume the number is even lower among women.
-
Lall, you're applying statistics on survivors of childhood abuse to project behaviour of adult victims of sexual assault.
Rape victims are no more likely to become pedophiles than anyone else.
*edited since Makk's post beat mine.
-
So in slavery the sexual abuse does not start until the victim is an adult?
I thought that the term sexual abuse was used for consistent long term sexual abuse that usually starts from a prepubescent age and goes on from that.
If sexual abuse is between adults then its rape?
If it is a blanket statement for all kinds of sexual abuse (including flashing) then the discussion got a lot more complex.
-
sexual abuse
n.
1. The forcing of unwanted sexual activity by one person on another, as by the use of threats or coercion. [The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company]
-
My point is that Slavery isn't something that analytically implies abuse
Thats just it. I dont think you can rationally define slavery as anything other than abuse.
Slavery is bad. Its abusive. Always. By definition. There is no "good" slavery. Or even neutral. Treating people like property and forcing them to do what you want is morally wrong. Always.
Can we all agree on that? I mean, as real life people.
(and no BDSM defense please, just...no)
That's where I disagree. You are confusing our IRL morality with a more neutral one taking in account different cultures. How could I tell you in the eyes that slavery is not abuse, OOCly ? Your question is unfair and biased, and only serves to derail the subject. Of course I loathe slavery OOCly. But I also understand that morality is not defined by some kind of christian universal standard, which you seem to miss in your argument.
Good bad and evil are stupid concepts, imo. That's what made me laugh when Bush junior started to use those everyday for his wars.
Also, sorry if I was doing it wrong with that children drawing a penis on a wall and starting a discussion that I found interesting about honor-killings.
It's not the penis-on-the-wall specifically. It's just logging in and hearing another '...and this is a horrible thing a Holder did...' I'm sorry if you feel I'm picking on you.
Well that was specifically told with a neutral tone, and actually not like the usual "this is a horrible thing a Holder did"... So yes, I am a bit "meh" to see that it got ignored in the process. Or maybe it got ignored especially because other people on the Summit were all like "OMG THATS TERRIBLE".
-
That's where I disagree. You are confusing our IRL morality with a more neutral one taking in account different cultures. How could I tell you in the eyes that slavery is not abuse, OOCly ? Your question is unfair and biased, and only serves to derail the subject. Of course I loathe slavery OOCly. But I also understand that morality is not defined by some kind of christian universal standard, which you seem to miss in your argument.
Good bad and evil are stupid concepts, imo. That's what made me laugh when Bush junior started to use those everyday for his wars.
First things first. Im not trying to create some "christian standard" for morality. If Im doing anything, I suppose, its a Kantian exercise, trying to create a priori moral understanding of a subject so we can talk about its existence in game. You have no idea what my religion is, or if I even have one, by design.
If you want people to respond better to you Lyn, I would suggest not making statements like that.
Look, lets be clear here if a player needs slavery to be good and/or beneficial or even neutral to enjoying playing Amarrian characters, then your never going to be able to enjoy playing your character.
Heres the bottom line. I have a lot of sympathy for the Amarrian bloc and the crap they get. Its one reason I encouraged this thread to be started. We could use a conversation about it.
But slavery will never be viewed as anything other than abusive by the players at large. Your statement of "I couldnt tell you that slavery isnt abusive OOC, but I want to talk about non-abusive slavery" is part of the problem. If you create a make believe world that has no bearing on peoples historical and moral understanding, then people are going to react to it like its just that, make-believe.
It just seems to be that some Amarrian players need slavery to be viewed positively or at least neutrally to enjoy playing their character. And thats simply not going to happen. People have a visceral negative reaction toward slavery. And I would say that if you need slavery to in anyway redeemable then dont play Amarr. You would enjoy another race more.
It just seems to me that a lot of players are putting forth descriptions of Amarrian slavery that doesnt jive with our historical, cultural, and popular understanding (or misunderstanding, as the case may be) of what slavery is. It doesnt make sense to me to say "well, Amarrians sexually abusing their slaves would never happen" because sexual exploitation has always been a factor of slavery when its occurred throughout history through a vast different number of cultures. Its part of what slavery IS.
And slavery in EVE is likely worse than slavery in modern day or even the past. Why? Because its a dystopian setting. Its dark. Its grim. If you try to make slavery better than what people know (or think they know) it to be, or try to make it better than what is portrayed in the PF, then its going to come off like a sparkly vampire. Not very compelling to a lot of people.
Im not saying put up or apologize with every wronged drama llama ex-slave that comes wailing into the Summit. Most of them are terribad RPers, and you really cant have good RP when playing with terribad RPers. I would suggest ignoring them.
But trying to solve the problem of "he touched me there!" Minmatar ex-slave RPers by trying to create non-abusive forms of racial slavery that is somehow morally neutral is basically jousting at windmills. Its not just going to happen.
-
Azdan's self-perceived "facts" about Amarr Slavery:
OOC
- Slavery is bad, mkay?
- Slavery is not dignified
- Slaves are not hired employees
- Slave-holders are not always malicious people
- Not all slaves suffer abuse but abuse does happen
- Sexual activity between slaves and slave-holders does happen, not always consensual, not to every slave and not necessarily to the majority of slaves, but it does happen
- Slavery is still bad, mkay?
IC
- Slavery is bad, mkay? (The Amarr are the ONLY people in the cluster that don't necessarily see slavery pragmatically. Angels, the Kingdom, Sansha, Blooders - all pragmatic, slaves are slaves and you don't have to sugarcoat it.)
- Your average Amarr is not a slave-holder
- Your average Amarr would be incensed by some of the things that go on in slavery
- Sexual activity does happen in Amarr slavery, not always consensual, not necessarily to the majority of slaves but it does happen
- Physical, mental and emotional abuse does happen in Amarr slavery. Degrees of abuse will vary from Holder to Holder and slave to slave with not every slave undergoing extreme levels of abuse
- Abuse is bad, mkay?
- What the Amarr consider "abuse" is likely very different than what we consider "abuse" with us being much more sensitive to it than them
- Slavery is a religious practice
- Slavery is still bad, mkay?
The point is simply that slavery exists in New Eden and there are several groups that employ it. The Amarr, the Angel Cartel, the Blood Raiders, Sansha's Nation, the Minmatar Republic and even the Gallente Federation! In fact, the only group of people that don't practice slavery on some level is the Caldari State (unless you count wage-slavery), but the State has its own vices.
The fact is that bad things happen in slavery because they can. This doesn't mean those things are encouraged, expected, tolerated or praised by the general populace but they do happen. Most such activities are not likely to ever be publicized.
The fact is that slavery in the Empire alone covers some billions of people. Therefore, even a small amount of abuse (of any kind) is going to cover a mind-staggering amount of people. (10% of slaves are infected with Vitoxin, this is millions and millions of people).
Out-of-character we are far more sensitive to mistreatment, abuse, human trafficking and other things than the Amarr or even most of New Eden are. Slavery doesn't need to be "good" or even "neutral" to enjoy playing Amarr, your character can believe it to be one of those things while you do not.
-
First things first. Im not trying to create some "christian standard" for morality. If Im doing anything, I suppose, its a Kantian exercise, trying to create a priori moral understanding of a subject so we can talk about its existence in game. You have no idea what my religion is, or if I even have one, by design.
Christian as a christian society. I included myself in the lot and being at the same time hanging between agnosticism and atheism RL. Yes, I have a christian upbringing, but that does not make me also a christian believer. Hell, I have even been baptized when I was a child and asked my parents why several times since ive never believed, and them not so much. It's just a question of societal traditions and structure, as well as education, etc. Even the calendar is a christian one, and even if the state tried to changed that after the Revolution, it finally didnt last past 10 years.
So no, I was definitly not assuming you were a believer or anything. I apologize considering how unclear I was, and also made the mistake to believe that you were also from a christian upbringing (culture again, not faith). I could have used western society instead, it would be the same. I assumed that you are from that upbringing right ?
Look, lets be clear here if a player needs slavery to be good and/or beneficial or even neutral to enjoying playing Amarrian characters, then your never going to be able to enjoy playing your character.
I wonder if anyone ever stated that ? Everywhere in this thread I have seen amarr proponents saying imaginary things like "assuming that slavery means that all slaves are mistreated is a fallacy" and opponents answering "assuming that slave abuses never happen is stupid", where it was actually not the point of anyone. Actually, everyone seems to agree on that. Cf Esna post where it is mostly a matter of :
Some people like to see the Empire's practice of slavery as the majority desiring being the faithful conversion of the Minmatar, with some minority indeed doing very bad things to their charges.
Some people like to see the Empire's practice of slavery as a means to abuse and provide a free and easily exploited underclass, with some minority actually intending to care for and uplift their charges.
Of course, I can understand what makes you say that (and I definitly agree with you on this) : I know a lot of Amarr players that try to make the amarr look the best possible in their eyes because they can't accept what slavery implies in regards to their western/christian view and morality.
Your statement of "I couldnt tell you that slavery isnt abusive OOC, but I want to talk about non-abusive slavery" is part of the problem. If you create a make believe world that has no bearing on peoples historical and moral understanding, then people are going to react to it like its just that, make-believe.
What ? I am sorry but I never said that...
It just seems to be that some Amarrian players need slavery to be viewed positively or at least neutrally to enjoy playing their character. And thats simply not going to happen. People have a visceral negative reaction toward slavery. And I would say that if you need slavery to in anyway redeemable then dont play Amarr. You would enjoy another race more.
It just seems to me that a lot of players are putting forth descriptions of Amarrian slavery that doesnt jive with our historical, cultural, and popular understanding (or misunderstanding, as the case may be) of what slavery is. It doesnt make sense to me to say "well, Amarrians sexually abusing their slaves would never happen" because sexual exploitation has always been a factor of slavery when its occurred throughout history through a vast different number of cultures. Its part of what slavery IS.
There is a lot of confusions in that part in my opinion.
Yeah, a lot of Amarrians, especially liberals, do not like what slavery implies as I said above, and try to work around it instead of finding real justifications for it. Instead of embracing it as it is, they try to minimize or twist the concept.
And yes, of course sexual abuses are part of what slavery is. Sexual abuses are part of life, period. Sexual abuses in the context we speak in comes from a hierarchy syndrome, where the superior abuses the inferior. It happens everywhere, at work everyday, at home, whatever. Believing that slavery somehow facilitates the process is a fallacy, I think. It only does it when rules preventing it are non existing, laxist, or not applied. The exact same way hierarchy facilitates it when rules are not correctly applied IRL at work.
For example recently in France we had the only law that concerned sexual harassement at work completely scratched out of the law because it happened that it was outdated, and especially vague and a source of discrepancies. So we ended up with no law on the matter. They are currently working on it to recreate a new one. Guess how women feel at the moment at work ?
What prevents a society based on slavery to have enforced rules on the matter ? What prevents such society to have rules preventing slave owners to fuck their slaves because its seen as dirty, degrading, and totally unethical, while at the same time having breeding colonies like they breed cattle ?
That's what makes New Eden interesting. It's grimdark, but ambiguously grimdark, not grimdark for the sake of being grimdark, or its not even grey anymore, it just becomes pitch black.
So, eventually, yes, I couldn't find any reason to tell you otherwise that I consider OOCly slavery as abhorent and unethical as hell. But as I said, christian upbringing here. But I can tell you however, that I believe there are countless other forms of slavery with the exact same consequences and ethical issues in the world which are not seen the same way, precisely because of that christian morality. We all know what christians were in the Roman Empire when they started to spread everywhere, right ? No surprise that their views on slavery are so strong. It is part of our history and our culture.
And yet we did it again in our colonies because we did not considered them as our kin.
-
Why does Amarrian slavery need to be good? Or even "okayish"?
EVE is a dark sci-fi world. Dark. Dystopian.
Amarrian slavery cannot be good or evil in a dark dystopian sci-fi world, it simply is.
A classic good vs. evil conflict belongs to an utopian world, a world where there are clear sides.
If we impose our modern western sensibilities and try to force a good-vs-evil perspective in the world of EVE, then yes, Amarrian's are more likely to be considered the 'bad guys' and the Minmatar the 'good guys'. If we go back in time and ask some random Roman or Greek citizen, they would probably indicate the Minmatar as being the bad guys.
Slavery should not have to be good to play a "good-guy" Amarrian correctly. In fact, to try to make slavery palatable is and certainly unrealistic and maybe even a tad bit unethical.
A slaver doesn't have to play either a good-guy or a bad-guy, they simply . Good guys tend to be people we identify with easily, and understand their motivation and choices, bad guys are the opposite. I'm not suprised that many modern western people find it difficult to identify with someone who keeps slaves.
Nazi Germany is often portrayed as 'bad guys' or 'evil empire', but I can assure you the german citizens of that time were neither bad nor evil. Most germans were simply regular citizens doing their best to 'get by' within the norms they had been taught.
-
Heres what bothers me about how people respond to the Amarr bloc in general and slavery in particular.
There is a lot of real world venom and vitriol regarding hatred toward the Amarr. And really, I dont think its slavery.
My belief is that people react so negatively to the Amarr because they have a chance to strike out against religion.
Hardly only that. The Amarrians have a whole list of things popular for modern western sensibilities to agitate against.
Religious Fanatiscm
Confirmism
Dogmatism
Imperialism
But agreed, slavery is merely a convenient target. The other aspects make the Amarr 'evil', and make the slaving pirates 'kinda cool', because pirates are non-religious, non-confirmist, non-dogmatic and non-imperialistic.
-
[Thats just it. I dont think you can rationally define slavery as anything other than abuse.
Slavery is bad. Its abusive. Always. By definition. There is no "good" slavery. Or even neutral. Treating people like property and forcing them to do what you want is morally wrong. Always.
Can we all agree on that? I mean, as real life people.
I completely disagree. Completely and utterly.
You fail to see how much your opinion if formed by fairly random assortment of cultural values. For some people abortion is murder and utterly evil, for some not at all. For some people homosexuality is utterly evil, others feel completely neutral about it. I have had people tell me that they thought that parents that hit their children are utterly twisted and evil.
I could be completely true that in 100 years people will think mandatory schooling is utterly evil, or conscription, or allowing people to buy and carry firearms. Hell, in 100 years people might think us idiots for having people that are absolutely unsuited an ill-qualified make and raise children.
You yourself are making a good point that many people nowadays are slowly considering (dogmatic) religion to be evil. That there can be no 'good' (dogmatic) religion.
Understand cultural relativism.
It those moral judgements shift as the wind does.
-
While I can agree that some of the arguments seem rather a bit familiar, I do not believe for an instant that the main reason the Amarr catch flak is because they're religious. It's because that to modern sensibilities, they embody the worst aspects of religion - massive hipocrisy, as well as the shadow sides you listed.
I don't think the reasoning of very many people goes "I hate all things religious; the Amarr are religious; therefore I will whale into them like the finest Internet Battle Atheists."
Rather, I think it's "I hate all things Amarr; the Amarr are quite religious; therefore popular atheist arguments are very convenient rhetoric against them."
Paraphrasing and generalizing massively, of course.
-
It just seems to be that some Amarrian players need slavery to be viewed positively or at least neutrally to enjoy playing their character. And thats simply not going to happen. People have a visceral negative reaction toward slavery. And I would say that if you need slavery to in anyway redeemable then dont play Amarr. You would enjoy another race more.
I have a visceral negative reaction towards slavery, religious dogmatism, conformism etc. I fairly anarchistic.
That visceral reaction is why I'm interested in trying to play a slaver. A slaver who tries to 'do good' an be the best person he can be. A believable slaver. A non-shallow slaver. A normal human slaver.
RP-ing a slaver and trying to defend their points of view against the viscerals amongst us (and anarchists especially) is the best way to try to look inside and see what motivates such people, try to determine why they would choose such a (to me) abhorrent path in life. Understand such people better.
-
Thanks for these great posts Merdaneth, I agree to the largest possible degree.
P.S.: I'm playing Nico for a good 5 years now, I think I'd have noticed if it's something not fun to me by now. I don't need someone to tell me what's fun to me and what's not either.
-
I mean, the Angels, Guristas, Serpentis, Blood Raiders, etc are all slavers. How often are they called slavers and hissed and booed in the IGS? Practically never. Indeed, its "cool" to be part of those factions.
While all of the pirate factions can be pointed at as having various connections to slavery, it's worth noting that they have other things people can point fingers at them over:
- Blooders are literally draining people of blood. Sure they've got slaves, but slavery is among the least of one's worries when it comes to being stuck with the Covenant.
- Serpentis are big on the drug manufacturing thing. It's a lot easier to go after them for pushing drugs onto kids and similar stuff than it is to go after them regarding slavery.
- The Sansha are, well, Sansha. Their brand of slavery is rather different from Amarrian slavery.
- Guristas are a bunch of streetwise thugs with a bone to pick with lawful powers. They're not only allied with the Covenant and Sansha out of political convenience and participate in the slave trade, but they're also terrorists.
- The Cartel openly deals in the slave trade, but it's only one of many illicit businesses they stick their fingers into. Stillwater's motto of "Angels are never far" isn't an inaccurate boast.
- The EoM are self-explanatory. They're out to kill everyone.
Also, +1 to what Jev said. It's more people being lazy in constructing their arguments than it is "hey let's bash the religious yokels lololol".
-
[Thats just it. I dont think you can rationally define slavery as anything other than abuse.
Slavery is bad. Its abusive. Always. By definition. There is no "good" slavery. Or even neutral. Treating people like property and forcing them to do what you want is morally wrong. Always.
Can we all agree on that? I mean, as real life people.
I completely disagree. Completely and utterly.
You fail to see how much your opinion if formed by fairly random assortment of cultural values. For some people abortion is murder and utterly evil, for some not at all. For some people homosexuality is utterly evil, others feel completely neutral about it. I have had people tell me that they thought that parents that hit their children are utterly twisted and evil.
I could be completely true that in 100 years people will think mandatory schooling is utterly evil, or conscription, or allowing people to buy and carry firearms. Hell, in 100 years people might think us idiots for having people that are absolutely unsuited an ill-qualified make and raise children.
You yourself are making a good point that many people nowadays are slowly considering (dogmatic) religion to be evil. That there can be no 'good' (dogmatic) religion.
Understand cultural relativism.
It those moral judgements shift as the wind does.
Inflicting suffering and harm on another person in the pursuit of your own benefit isn't something I'm prepared to be subjective about.
"Society thinks this way" as a justification for activity that results in human suffering just strikes me as Argumentum ad Populum or the "bandwagon fallacy."
Ab-use, at its basic root, refers to use which is unintended or improper. This is reasonable to understand in the sense of abuse of substances. Prescription drugs can have a benefit for the user when taken in a certain way, but you can abuse prescription drugs in a manner that will cause harm.
Likewise you can "use" (more properly, utilize) the labor or cognitive input of another person in ways that result in mutual benefit (from a purely bi-lateral sense all the way to communal). However, if the exchange is one in which one party receives all of the benefit and the other is subjected to restrictions of self-determination and violent coercion for non-conformity or lack or expected performance, that seems to fit the pattern of "use which results in harm".
When the collective inputs of a class of people result in a rise in standard of living and comfort for others while they themselves continue receiving only the absolute minimum necessities (and in some cases less than that), especially when those receiving the bulk of the benefit contribute little to nothing in terms of real sacrifice or effort by comparison, the result is an abusive relationship between those groups.
Again, we can easily identify this in the case of a purely bi-lateral interaction. Joe-six-pack sits around the house all day getting drunk and generally being a waste of oxygen while Jane works her butt off at two jobs to pay the bills and still keeps the house in good order. Whether as a result of exploiting a co-dependency issue or through use of verbal/physical/sexual intimidation, clearly there is a disequilibrium here. Now, the relativist would say "hey, if that makes her happy taking care of him..." but there's more to it than that. Jane is likely suffering long-term physical exhaustion and increased hormone levels (such as Cortisol) which result in chronic stress, hypertension and other ailments which reduce immune health, increase likelihood of heart disease and a myriad of other physiological conditions which can be objectively verified.
My point in all of this is "society might say x" is all well and good, but there are absolute physical realities that refute what society might say. Slavery -and any form of poverty or destitution for that matter- has observable physically harmful results on human beings as well as increased rates of mental/psychological abnormalities.
None of this, by the way, is intended to impart any judgments upon those who portray these behaviors in RP.
-
Inflicting suffering and harm on another person in the pursuit of your own benefit isn't something I'm prepared to be subjective about.
False comparison, since slavery does not equal inflicting suffering and harm upon another person. (also, how do you go about breaking up with your girlfriend while she's still in love with you and doesn't want to break up?)
Ab-use, at its basic root, refers to use which is unintended or improper. This is reasonable to understand in the sense of abuse of substances. Prescription drugs can have a benefit for the user when taken in a certain way, but you can abuse prescription drugs in a manner that will cause harm.
Again, false comparison. Abuse is indeed (by definition) always improper. However, we are talking about slavery and not about abuse. Slavery does not equal abuse.
You seem to be making the fallacy: slavery = evil, and evil is objectively bad. I agree with you on the second part, not about the first.
Let me give you another comparison: maybe in 200 years the moral rule of society says that raising cattle for the benefit of killing and eating them without necessity and just because 'it tastes good' is utterly evil and that primitive societies (like ours) were engaged in immoral and depraved forms of slavery and wholesale slaughter of fellow sentient inhabitants of our planet. That cultural relativism too.
In fact, even in today's world there are many cultures which frown upon raising and slaughtering cows for meat (but not other animals). If you admitted you ate cow meat for your own pleasure, and they tell you that you are morally depraved for doing so, what would your response be? What if they told you that your society's relationship to cows is abusive and they can objectively determine that your society's treatment of them is bad for the cow's health....
Most people would likely respond in laughter. Most people would probably say 'don't be absurd, its just an animal'. Most people would respond with some variant of 'I don't go out of my way to hurt or abuse cows, its just their function in society to be raised as cattle and eaten', maybe a lot of people would admit never having given much thought about why we raise cows as cattle to be milked and slaughtered: 'I dunno, its just away it is and always has been' is a probable response.
The question would be: can you keep cattle and not abuse them? Of course you can. Most likely most people don't go out inflict hurt upon cattle ny more than they need to have the cattle perform their function in society. Are there people that use their position of power over them to inflict abuse upon cattle? Of course there are, but their behaviour is not indicative of the general moral compass of a cattle-raising society. I think a cow-herding society like the Masai is actually quite respectful of their cattle even though it is in their power to completely abuse their cows.
Cultural relativism says that having a society be ok with cows raised as cattle, butchered and eaten, but cats and dogs (or humans) not is quite arbitrary.
I'm quite ok with people having visceral reactions to the (fictional) slavery of EVE. I'm also ok with people thinking slavery is somehow objectively bad. People are horrible at cultural relativism. However, I will continue to disagree with them. And I believe lack of cultural relativism is one of the root causes of 'abuse'. Not because people that engage in said abuse are immoral, but because they actually believe (or raised to believe) that what they are doing is absolutely, objectively, unquestionably good.
-
Now, I'd like to see that objective study in regards to ancient greek slavery.
The assumption here is, that slavery is by definition not mutually beneficial. Anyone having read Aristotle on slavery sees that he defines slavery as mutually beneficial. He, being a slave holder himself, is agreeing that keeping opf slaves is unjust, if it's not beneficial to the slave though.
And there are benefits for the slave in the Empire, e.g. the chance for rehabilitation into Amarr society as a citizen or the introduction into it as such.
I could go into RL examples where we accept threats of violence, curtailing of individual freedoms, isolation and all that. But just as others here, I don't really want to discuss RL politics here.
-
My reading of the discussion was that Gottii was expressing the strong hope that the others in this thread shared his--culturally relative--understanding that slavery in our contemporary real world is Not Okay.
In another strand of this discussion we're talking about other cultures which hold that it is okay, including both real-world cultures and fictional ones.
-
And there are benefits for the slave in the Empire, e.g. the chance for rehabilitation into Amarr society as a citizen or the introduction into it as such.
I see slavery as merely a certain set of cultural norms regulating a particular form of dependent relationship between people.
There are many relationships in society where the balance of power between the partners in the relationship is unequal and not freely chosen. Marital relationship, parent-child relationships, warden-prisoner relationships, officer-grunt relationships, etc. etc.
In an age where getting pregnant was not really a choice, protecting women from getting pregnant without a 'partner' that was expected to help her give birth and raise children was very benificial. Even if it came at the cost of getting raped at times (within the marriage).
Having someone that inflicted damage on society removed from it temporarily and having others husband them (imprisonement) can be very benificial to society as a whole (if perhaps not to the prisoner).
And few question the benefit of the unequal and dependent relationship between children and those that raise them.
There is a law here which obligated everyone until the age of 16 to have full-time schooling. I can tell you that most children of 12-16 in modern western society would rather not have that (near daily) obligation visited upon them. However, its likely they will benefit from it. So can slave benefit from education given to them.
Is slavery an optimal means of providing benefits to such people? I don't think so. But that wasn't the question....
-
Inflicting suffering and harm on another person in the pursuit of your own benefit isn't something I'm prepared to be subjective about.
False comparison, since slavery does not equal inflicting suffering and harm upon another person. (also, how do you go about breaking up with your girlfriend while she's still in love with you and doesn't want to break up?)
Can you provide me with an example of slavery whereby the subjugated is not harmed or denied the shared benefit of their own labor or expertise? I can't think of a way to do it without some form of coercion involved in having another person acquiesce to the value of their efforts being extracted from them.
Breaking up with someone due to a loss of romantic interest isn't abuse. Remaining in a relationship purely out of desire not to hurt the other person's feelings while not providing mutual or reciprocal emotional investment is actually the more harmful option (to both parties).
"Hurt feelings" while possibly resulting in similar physiological symptoms in the short-term is nowhere near the same offense as long-term mistreatment. If someone descends into a serious depression over the end of a romantic partnership, there are probably other issues at work (in many cases, a symptom of prior abusive or neglectful behaviors).
Ab-use, at its basic root, refers to use which is unintended or improper. This is reasonable to understand in the sense of abuse of substances. Prescription drugs can have a benefit for the user when taken in a certain way, but you can abuse prescription drugs in a manner that will cause harm.
Again, false comparison. Abuse is indeed (by definition) always improper. However, we are talking about slavery and not about abuse. Slavery does not equal abuse.
You seem to be making the fallacy: slavery = evil, and evil is objectively bad. I agree with you on the second part, not about the first.
Again, provide an example of slavery that works without any abusive construct to enforce its continuation.
If I had meant to conclude it was evil, I would have used the word evil.
I'm basing it entirely on tangible, verifiable study and observation, not emotional appeals.
Let me give you another comparison: maybe in 200 years the moral rule of society says that raising cattle for the benefit of killing and eating them without necessity and just because 'it tastes good' is utterly evil and that primitive societies (like ours) were engaged in immoral and depraved forms of slavery and wholesale slaughter of fellow sentient inhabitants of our planet. That cultural relativism too.
In fact, even in today's world there are many cultures which frown upon raising and slaughtering cows for meat (but not other animals). If you admitted you ate cow meat for your own pleasure, and they tell you that you are morally depraved for doing so, what would your response be? What if they told you that your society's relationship to cows is abusive and they can objectively determine that your society's treatment of them is bad for the cow's health....
Most people would likely respond in laughter. Most people would probably say 'don't be absurd, its just an animal'. Most people would respond with some variant of 'I don't go out of my way to hurt or abuse cows, its just their function in society to be raised as cattle and eaten', maybe a lot of people would admit never having given much thought about why we raise cows as cattle to be milked and slaughtered: 'I dunno, its just away it is and always has been' is a probable response.
The question would be: can you keep cattle and not abuse them? Of course you can. Most likely most people don't go out inflict hurt upon cattle ny more than they need to have the cattle perform their function in society. Are there people that use their position of power over them to inflict abuse upon cattle? Of course there are, but their behaviour is not indicative of the general moral compass of a cattle-raising society. I think a cow-herding society like the Masai is actually quite respectful of their cattle even though it is in their power to completely abuse their cows.
Cultural relativism says that having a society be ok with cows raised as cattle, butchered and eaten, but cats and dogs (or humans) not is quite arbitrary.
I'm quite ok with people having visceral reactions to the (fictional) slavery of EVE. I'm also ok with people thinking slavery is somehow objectively bad. People are horrible at cultural relativism. However, I will continue to disagree with them. And I believe lack of cultural relativism is one of the root causes of 'abuse'. Not because people that engage in said abuse are immoral, but because they actually believe (or raised to believe) that what they are doing is absolutely, objectively, unquestionably good.
This all depends on your definition of consciousness, sentience or even sapience, which I'll admit is an interesting philosophical discussion that can take off on an entirely different tangent.
But that's a whole different conversation than treatment of one another within the same species. It is interesting to note that a great deal of rationalization offered for slavery throughout human history has revolved around determining those subjected to it being deemed inferior in the attributes discussed above, yet only the most superficial bio-genetic differences can be actually observed.
Don't get me wrong, I think there's a wide range of diversity in the realm of cultural and societal beliefs in the absence of objective, observable facts. But I don't think that just because a large group of people "decide" that x is true or y is false makes it so. There are behaviors that result in real physiological damage to a person and there are behaviors that result in perceived emotional upset.
-
My reading of the discussion was that Gottii was expressing the strong hope that the others in this thread shared his--culturally relative--understanding that slavery in our contemporary real world is Not Okay.
There is a difference between 'not optimal', 'not ok', 'objectively bad' and 'evil'. I would say that slavery in our contemporary world is probably not optimal, but only very rarely evil.
In fact, looking at it from a slaver's perspective, I truly believe that we can consider the position of children in our modern society as a form of slavery. Slavery for the benefit of the child, and with all the best intentions, but slavery nonetheless. We might not have the same visceral reaction to the position of a child, but the position is there nonetheless.
Also, plenty of examples of societies who physically mutilate their children (circumcisions come to mind) unnecessarily as a cultural norm. Are those people evil? Are they objectively bad? Most likely not, they've merely chosen a non-optimal way of dealing with some common problems in human societies.
I share Gotti's understanding that most people in modern western society 'see/feel' slavery as evil. I'm not agreeing with his assessment that people/societies who engage in slavery are evil.
That was part of the core argument. The whole urge of condemning (religious) slavery as objectively evil in EVE as influenced to by our modern-day sensibilities and visceral reactions. And how such sensibilities and the responses they generate made it sometimes hard to RP slavery in EVE.
My point is: can you be just a upstanding, moral regular citizen and keep slaves yourselves or condone slavery? Of course you can, in fact, it would be difficult to for a society to maintain its balance if most people aren't trying to 'do good' while keeping slaves.
And I still believe its 'the viscera' who are the major troublemakers here. Mass murder barely raises an eyebrow in EVE, while religious dogmatic conformist slavery invites slews of 'thou must be evil' fingerpointing.
-
My point is: can you be just a upstanding, moral regular citizen and keep slaves yourselves or condone slavery? Of course you can, in fact, it would be difficult to for a society to maintain its balance if most people aren't trying to 'do good' while keeping slaves.
Well, this points out an issue of false dichotomy or hasty generalization on the part of those making the challenge.
Everyone has various attributes of character that neither wholly condemn or uplift them on their own.
I can both agree and disagree with various behaviors despite them being present in the same person.
Someone can engage in generous philanthropy while simultaneously colluding with others to dominate natural resources and manipulate social institutions. I don't think anyone has ever reached being an absolute paragon of virtue or servant of vice.
That's why I've focused mainly on behaviors and not people in this discussion :9.
-
Can you provide me with an example of slavery whereby the subjugated is not harmed or denied the shared benefit of their own labor or expertise? I can't think of a way to do it without some form of coercion involved in having another person acquiesce to the value of their efforts being extracted from them.
Define 'harm'. If you work for a boss, you don't get full benefit of your own labor or expertise. You only get what is agreed on. Excess profit goes wholly to those who own the company. There is no need for coercion of any kind, yet you can be discarded after making the company a profit without a second thought. This is quite common in society, and hardly indicative of slavery (or even something we consider abusive).
My favorite example of subjugation is children. They are legally (and practically) subjugated for years. And yes, coercion is used on them. A lot. Unfortunately, most people's visceral reaction to this comparison is 'no way! that's just wrong!', however, when just looking at the subjugation aspect, it very much like slavery. Look at it objectively, and you can see the similarities. And yes, its a form of slavery that mostly goes fine due to many built-in checks and balances.
Breaking up with someone due to a loss of romantic interest isn't abuse. Remaining in a relationship purely out of desire not to hurt the other person's feelings while not providing mutual or reciprocal emotional investment is actually the more harmful option (to both parties).
I didn't say it was abuse. I merely pointed out that in such a case you will inflict harm upon a person purely for your own benefit. It's an cultural accepted way of inflicting harm upon another. However, if you are 'married' in our culture, suddenly you are much more likely to be considered 'immoral' for abandoning your partner and mroe likely to suffer societal retribution, while the actual harm inflicted to your partner may not be different at all. My point was: you gave a definition which was supposed to fit a situation which could objectively be termed 'bad', I countered with an example which fit your definition but you wouldn't think of as bad, thereby invalidating that definition.
But that's a whole different conversation than treatment of one another within the same species. It is interesting to note that a great deal of rationalization offered for slavery throughout human history has revolved around determining those subjected to it being deemed inferior in the attributes discussed above, yet only the most superficial bio-genetic differences can be actually observed.
Of course. Such rationalizations help people against (quite natural) feelings of empathy. You get that in war a lot too. It is actually quite hard to get people to physically go out and hurt and kill each other without an immediate threat. It quite helpful to try sketch your opponents as different and less for any kind of violence to occur. Same thing with men and women (women have been sketched as 'less' than men for millenia now), just because the men have some additional muscle? Quite arbitraty.
My point with the examples is that to draw the line at a 99.96% genetic match to not enslave others, and not at a 99.2% genetic match is quite arbitrary however you view it. And that is despite and visceral feelings you have. The lines drawn are not based on 'abuse' but on very practical concerns which can have arbitraty solutions.
-
Also, I think it's quite objectionable to classify physiological damage as something objective, while dismissing psychological damage as merely 'perceived emotional upset', implying that it's any less objectively damaging or real.
As for an example where the slave wasn't harmed or denied the shared benefit of their own labor or expertise? You ever heard about the tironian notes? They've been even named after the slave who developed them, allegedly: Marcus Tullius Tiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Tullius_Tiro)?
-
[Thats just it. I dont think you can rationally define slavery as anything other than abuse.
Slavery is bad. Its abusive. Always. By definition. There is no "good" slavery. Or even neutral. Treating people like property and forcing them to do what you want is morally wrong. Always.
Can we all agree on that? I mean, as real life people.
I completely disagree. Completely and utterly.
You fail to see how much your opinion if formed by fairly random assortment of cultural values. For some people abortion is murder and utterly evil, for some not at all. For some people homosexuality is utterly evil, others feel completely neutral about it. I have had people tell me that they thought that parents that hit their children are utterly twisted and evil.
I could be completely true that in 100 years people will think mandatory schooling is utterly evil, or conscription, or allowing people to buy and carry firearms. Hell, in 100 years people might think us idiots for having people that are absolutely unsuited an ill-qualified make and raise children.
You yourself are making a good point that many people nowadays are slowly considering (dogmatic) religion to be evil. That there can be no 'good' (dogmatic) religion.
Understand cultural relativism.
It those moral judgements shift as the wind does.
Fine, show me an example of non-abusive racial slavery. (or any slavery for that matter)
Not just throwing the words "cultural relativism" but showing me an actual clear cut example of a positive form of slavery from one of these various cultures.
-
I share Gotti's understanding that most people in modern western society 'see/feel' slavery as evil. I'm not agreeing with his assessment that people/societies who engage in slavery are evil.
I never said a slaver or slave holder had to be evil. Not once. You obviously didnt read my statements very thoroughly.
In fact my exact words were
"Does this mean your can character be a morally (keep in mind, that would mean he would embody Amarrian morals) upright, thoughtful, kind, even benevolent in thought and motivation and still allow/participate in such an evil institution? Of course it does"
So Im actually saying you can play a morally upright, thoughtful, kind, benevolent slave holder who takes part in an evil institution. Even an institution we "feel" is evil.
I said its impossible to be a "classic good guy" and play an Amarrian slaver. Then I went on and said that its impossible to be one of the"good guys" and play an EVE character in any meaningful sense.
Its not about trying to play a good or evil character. Its about trying to play a nuanced and realistic character.
-
And there are benefits for the slave in the Empire, e.g. the chance for rehabilitation into Amarr society as a citizen or the introduction into it as such.
I see slavery as merely a certain set of cultural norms regulating a particular form of dependent relationship between people.
There are many relationships in society where the balance of power between the partners in the relationship is unequal and not freely chosen. Marital relationship, parent-child relationships, warden-prisoner relationships, officer-grunt relationships, etc. etc.
In an age where getting pregnant was not really a choice, protecting women from getting pregnant without a 'partner' that was expected to help her give birth and raise children was very benificial. Even if it came at the cost of getting raped at times (within the marriage).
Having someone that inflicted damage on society removed from it temporarily and having others husband them (imprisonement) can be very benificial to society as a whole (if perhaps not to the prisoner).
And few question the benefit of the unequal and dependent relationship between children and those that raise them.
There is a law here which obligated everyone until the age of 16 to have full-time schooling. I can tell you that most children of 12-16 in modern western society would rather not have that (near daily) obligation visited upon them. However, its likely they will benefit from it. So can slave benefit from education given to them.
Is slavery an optimal means of providing benefits to such people? I don't think so. But that wasn't the question....
In this arena, the question becomes: what justifies the determination of one party being deemed "dependent."
Just to address your examples,
Marriage: If the arrangement is not freely chosen, then in this case I do see it as another form of slavery or subjugation. Usually this is seen in societies where one of the two sexes is seen as inferior with all manner of condescending rationalizations offered. While there is high correlation between this paradigm and other abuses, the tipping point for me starts at the basic act of whether both partners entered willingly or if one (or both) were refused free association.
Parent-child: Children are in many ways incapable of fully functioning and sustaining themselves without assistance. Different cultures have different views on when this changes (and different expectations on how to prepare them for this). Infants and toddlers are dependent for basic sustenance and physical well-being, children for safety and security, adolescents enter a period of turbulence in emotional growth and judgment. I think the most deviation occurs in the last period, some preferring to retain "control" through young adulthood, others preferring to let them loose at that point and rely on a more distant "guidance" from there. The legal requirement for schooling is based on the idea that a) society as a whole benefits from educated people and b) without education in a society where it is prevalent, a person may be far less capable of meeting their basic needs (can't get a job that provides the minimal necessities of sustaining life). Obviously, there's a lot of variables that can differ here.
Warden-prisoner: Assuming the prisoner was fully aware of the laws in effect, they freely chose to enter into this relationship by breaking them. Again, room for debate arises out of whether the laws themselves were aligned towards common societal interests or designed to extract conformity for the benefit of a few (imprisonment for voicing a dissenting opinion, political prisoners, etc). This could also be the result of being captured in an armed conflict, which I'll expand upon below.
Officer-grunt: Again, a relationship that may or may not be the result of a voluntary agreement. In an all-volunteer military, you chose to enter into this relationship from the very beginning. Also, depending on the military in question, there may be many benefits you enjoy as a result of this association. In the U.S. you can receive assistance in pursuing higher education, an honorable discharge looks great on a job application, you have the camaraderie and respect of fellow service members and access to social services available exclusively to veterans. On the other end of the spectrum would be a draft or impressment-based military that offers nothing in return. Which would basically be a form of slavery in which you were expected to place yourself at great personal risk without any reciprocal benefit or compensation. There's probably some grey areas in there where some threatening external force that would be detrimental to society exists and able members of the community are required to submit to service (WW2, for example). While it could be argued that free association was removed, at least in this case some benefit exists for those who are required to participate (assuming the threat was real and not manufactured or over-stated). Also in this specific example, while retroactively put into place, many additional benefits were given to those who served in the conflict and was partly responsible for a further increase in overall societal well-being (benefits given to veterans and their families helped build the middle class in America).
So there seems to be some overall guidelines here:
1) Is the relationship a result of free-association or not
2) Do all parties to the relationship receive benefits at least partially consistent with their relative efforts
3) What dependencies exist that justify one party existing in a lesser role
If one party has no say in their status, can't be shown to have any real dependency in the absence of coercive force or societal whim and remains limited in their share of communal wealth while doing the bulk of the actual value-increasing work required to sustain that wealth...
I'd call that slavery based on definable, measurable terms.
-
Fine, show me an example of non-abusive racial slavery. (or any slavery for that matter)
Not just throwing the words "cultural relativism" but showing me an actual clear cut example of a positive form of slavery from one of these various cultures.
I think that his point was actually that not denying that slavery is abusive, but that a lot of other things can be as well, that us - with our cultural relativism - do see as inherently "good". Thus, the emphasis on the good/evil (completely subjective terms tainted by an absence of cultural relativism) vs abuse (whatever the definition we give it is). Actually I think that would you have not used the terms "evil" and "good" we would not even be having this discussion.
Like for example myself finding utterly unethical the notion of capital punishement or civilians carrying guns (i could say I consider these evil if i wanted), while other societies/cultures will look at me, calling me crazy for thinking so.
-
Like for example myself finding utterly unethical the notion of capital punishement or civilians carrying guns (i could say I consider these evil if i wanted), while other societies/cultures will look at me, calling me crazy for thinking so.
Heres the problem Lyn. Youre not a slaver or a supporter of real life slavery, right? I mean, Im not threatening your culture, am I? Im talking about a culture in a make-believe universe filled with spaceships that swim. Lets ease off the cultural umbrage here a bit.
I mean, its not like me saying "slavery is an evil institution" might actually reflect your real life values or culture, right? Which is different than the positions you mentioned, which are held by some people out there.
-
Amarrian slavery is as much racially motivated as the US penal system. One problem here is that people measure Amarrian slavery by applying their very own definition of slavery and judging Amarr according to it, instead of taking the Amarrian definition of slavery and look at it from this angle.
This aside here's my beef with one-half of what is happening here:
It seems to me that I've been told now multiple times that playing an Amarr who's portraying the practice and institution of slavery as something that can be good and in certain cases is good is a case of 'U r doin it wrong!'.
The reasons brought up so far are:
1. Historically was never good.
2. Slavery is evil.
3. Slavery is abuse is evil.
So, while I object to point 1. to 3. even if they all were true, these are not sufficient reasons to justify the call of "U r doin it wrong!". Even if Slavery is objectively evil by necessity, it doesn't follow in the least that Amarr can't practice it in a way that makes it appear as acceptable and good as possible.
The only other objection to that, which I've heard so far, is the following: "In fact, to try to make slavery palatable is and certainly unrealistic and maybe even a tad bit unethical."
Unrealistic is it only in so far as slavery is by definition evil. There are definitions of slavery though that are neutral to morality and they are perfectly fine in so far as they can be used to demarcate the practice and thus who is a slave and who a slaveholder.
So, is it unethical to play an Amarr who makes slavery palatable unethical? Is it impossible to make it palatable, if it's unethical to do so? And should one refrain from playing someone portraying slavery as palatable, because it's unethical to portray slavery like that?
I really think not if one is allowed to play other people who're doing unethical things. There's the again and again cited 'grimdark'. EVE isn't nice and clean and people do unethical things. I don't see why portraying slavery as palatable shouldn't be among those if it is unethical - as it is logically quite possible.
Thus, I conclude that there are no reasons that necessiate to think of the Empire as a place where slavery implies by necessity abuse of the slave or where the majority of the slaves are abused or where slavery is not portrayed and practiced in a way that portrays it as being not unethical but ethical.
-
The reasons brought up so far are:
1. Historically was never good.
2. Slavery is evil.
3. Slavery is abuse is evil.
So, while I object to point 1. to 3. even if they all were true, these are not sufficient reasons to justify the call of "U r doin it wrong!".
Actually, if 1 is true, then, yeah, I can kinda say that its going to be problematic to put it into the EVE setting.
I go back to EVE being a dystopian world. Its dark. Grim. We all agree with that.
But if youre taking something found in both history and the modern world, and making it better, then youre creating a Utopian world, not a Dysctopian one, and youre likely going to clash with other peoples RP who play the game and view the PF under the lens of a dark world.
There is also the problem that literally no one can show me any PF evidence of slavery existing in the form you mention, the non-abusive kind with positive interactions between Master and slave are the norm, while Ive pointed to many examples of its opposite.
I can show examples of slaves being tortured and killed for science, for narrative evidence that gentry are unwillingly to go into slave quarters at night for fear of being attacked, that slaves are kept in line by either drugs or the threat of violence (rather than say some kind of communal incentive program).
Again, I would really like to see some PF on these positions youre taking.
-
Re: Cultural Relativism.
Syylara gives some very points here.
But I would like to add one, in that I think it rather skews the argument in the slavers favor. By saying, "you cant give any objective judgments on the Amarrians, its their culture" he rather misses the point that Minmatar werent part of Amarrian culture to begin with. Its not their values, any more than the African slaves were part of British, French or Portugese culture when they were enslaved.
Isnt the slaves opinions just as valid as those enslaving them? Merdaneths position lends itself to the absurd position that those being enslaved really have no right to judge their enslavers.
I had no idea that the position that you had no cultural right to enslave another people outside of your culture was so controversial.
Im of the opinion that there are some practices that "oh its my culture" is not a valid justification. An afghan tribesman throwing acid in the face of girls who are walking to school, or trying to poison a school drinking water comes to mind. Nazi death camp guards is another. My ancestors using slave labor a cotton plantation is another.
-
I go back to EVE being a dystopian world. Its dark. Grim. We all agree with that.
But if youre taking something found in both history and the modern world, and making it better, then youre creating a Utopian world, not a Dysctopian one, and youre likely going to clash with other peoples RP who play the game and view the PF under the lens of a dark world.
This is actually not a good argument, as in it's generality at least, EVE thus shouldn't be able to have e.g. better medical healthcare than we have and cloning as in the podder would be utopian as well.
-
Many dystopias found in fictional and artistic works present a utopian society with at least one fatal flaw,[11] whereas a utopian society is founded on the good life, a dystopian society’s dreams of improvement are overshadowed by stimulating fears of the "ugly consequences of present-day behavior."[12] People are alienated and individualism is restricted by the government.
A Utopian society with at least one fatal flaw. It sounds to me like trying to make the institution of slavery by the Amarr as positive as possible still fits into the definition of dystopia.
Even as a grimdark setting (rife with war, low life expectancy) you could still portray Amarrian slavery in the best possible light (limited, of course by the the concept of slavery itself) and be true to the setting.
Using "it's a dystopian world" or "it's a grimdark setting" doesn't actually justify having to make slavery as brutal, abusive and evil as possible. Given the cultural write-up of the Amarr, they have plenty of flaws and slavery is certainly one of their biggest points of contention but it doesn't necessarily have to be the darkest, worst implementation of it to be true to the setting or the style of setting that is EVE.
This argument has gone back and forth repeatedly at this point and the consensus doesn't appear to be forthcoming. The only description (compromise) that I see even remotely fitting is:
"Even if the Amarr practice slavery as civilly and humanely as possible, there still exists those who will abuse it and manipulate it for personal gain and pleasure."
-
Fine, show me an example of non-abusive racial slavery. (or any slavery for that matter)
Not just throwing the words "cultural relativism" but showing me an actual clear cut example of a positive form of slavery from one of these various cultures.
The Mamluks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk
They were a very interesting phenomenon, really. While you might certainly argue that purchasing children, taking them away from their families and raising them to become soldiers might be unethical and abusive, growing up to become a member of a powerful military and political elite certainly offsets that quite a bit. Some of these slaves even became the rulers of their respective countries/societies and founded dynasties of their own, all while technically remaining slaves.
"In places such as Egypt from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be “true lords," with social status above freeborn Muslims."
I always imagined the Khanid as a concept (and certainly the Kameiras) to be at least in part inspired by the Mamluks.
-
Mamluks also enjoyed cutting the dicks and balls off their soldiers, so they'd be more cooperative.
Fuck the Mamluks.
-
Fine, show me an example of non-abusive racial slavery. (or any slavery for that matter)
Not just throwing the words "cultural relativism" but showing me an actual clear cut example of a positive form of slavery from one of these various cultures.
Well, all historical evidence that was not-abusive is proof of that. However, finding examples of not-X is in itself hard. You might as well ask for an example of a society that has non-crime. In such a case the best I can do is point out difference in crime rates and show that criminal behaviour is not the norm in a society (even though there are more reports about criminal behaviour than non-criminal behaviour, since reporting the norm is odd).
But, for perhaps an interesting alternate read besides our historical Mamluks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_slavery
Or perhaps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece
Of course, its good to remember that for example the cultural tradition of getting a Dalai Lama involves taking away a child from their family and keeping it in bondage. Would you consider the Dalai-Lama non-abusive slavery
In most instances slavery in historical culture slavery is simply a convenient solution to issues with prisoners (or victims) of war, issues of unpayable debt and issues, conscription (like the Mamluks) and issues with repeat criminal offenders. It tends to be only the slave trade which gave rise to excesses of abuse (in the sense, lot more abusive relationships than relationship among non-slaves)
Also informative about Greek slavery:
"The tablets indicate that unions between slaves and non-slaves were not uncommon and that slaves could be independent artisans and retain plots of land. It appears that the major division in Mycenaean civilization was not between slave and free, but between those attached to the palace and those not."
The problem is really that to our modern western sensibilities the concepts of 'slavery' and 'abuse' are largely synonymous. Slavery is abusive by nature, and all depedent and enforced relationships which aren't (like conscription or raising a new Dalai-Lama in bondage) are not considered slavery. Which brings us to the confusion of: Amarr are slavers, and all slavery is abusive, abuse is evil/bad, so Amarr are evil/bad.
-
Personally, I'd find it a great deal easier to approach Amarrian slavery as something very culturally foreign and morally ambigious if it, well, actually seemed to be pitched that way often. To be honest, (ane please do pardon me if I am being unperceptive here!) the PF seems to portray it as very generic, modern slavery in terms of practice, in all manners except the motivation behind it. In fact, I'd be very surprised if CCP hadn't drawn considerable influence from civil war era stuff when they came up with the Amarr/Minmatar dynamic.
-
Like for example myself finding utterly unethical the notion of capital punishement or civilians carrying guns (i could say I consider these evil if i wanted), while other societies/cultures will look at me, calling me crazy for thinking so.
Heres the problem Lyn. Youre not a slaver or a supporter of real life slavery, right? I mean, Im not threatening your culture, am I? Im talking about a culture in a make-believe universe filled with spaceships that swim. Lets ease off the cultural umbrage here a bit.
I mean, its not like me saying "slavery is an evil institution" might actually reflect your real life values or culture, right? Which is different than the positions you mentioned, which are held by some people out there.
I am pretty sure you can find on Earth people supporting slavery, and i'm not really thinking of the average drug baron. But maybe in the future we will have a new revolutionnary mindset emerging with slavery as its core principle.
And then, as other people like Merdaneth stated above, there are many types of slavery IRL, that's just that "slavery with a collar" is merely one of all these sides that we learned to loathe.
But no, my problem is not with you hating slavery, my problem is with you saying it is evil, because I think it is not, and because it happens that I believe that good and evil concepts are absurd.
-
Gwen,
at least to me as someone over here from Europe - and I think the Icelanders are feeling like they are Europeans, too - that which you describe as 'generic, modern slavery' feels less like 'generic and modern' but more like a 'specific and civil war era USAian'. Even in school we touched first on the subject of slavery when we were talking about the Greeks, then the Romans and only later in school about the US-American civil wars, about which we talked in relation relatively briefly.
So, I really have less of a connection to what happened in the US civil war era with slaves and stuff than to the ancient Greek practice of slavery. And while the former is really 'not my beef' and feels like a problem of the US-Americans to me, the Greek slavery feels very distant as well. So, I can understand if people feel close to what happened in the US to slaves not too far back in their history - and which practically didn't end in all aspects with the civil war either - have some visceral reactions to slavery, see depictions of slavery naturally in the light of what happened in the US and all in all think that if someone depicts slavery it would be surprising if he wouldn't draw on the civil war era US. To me, slavery is a problem, even an actual problem (e.g. nowadays there are probably more slaves on earth than anytime before) but nothing that elicits an overly visceral, emotional reaction.
Also, if I think about Amarrian slavery and compare it with the European conquest of the Americas, it seems to me much more comparable to the hispanic encomienda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda), complete with instruction in the catholic faith and the harsh discrepancies in reality between intent and practice.
So, while it might be surprising to you, if I would come up with a background that involves slavery I would last think of the US civil war era. That's not to say that CCP wouldn't think of it, but it is far from surprising to me if they did not.
-
[Battleship mode on (http://www.mediamarketjournal.com/2011/12/conan-christoph-waltz-tells-us-the-difference-between-austrians-and-germans-video/)]
I can just qoute myself...."Many people say they are like southern slaveholders, but I think is a very american view on slavery." [1 (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Opinions_by_Publius_Valerius)] It an old text from me.... from 2009ish.
But on the other hand ....I dont understand why you people try to talk and to discuss with him (Gotti). I had sadly ones too; about the topic of transaction cost (Dougles Norths: search-, negotiation-, enforcement-costs of decision and/or actions) and export of europe and the US. I could bring hunderts of expamles and stats form the netherlands, denmark, germany... he wouldnt most likley listen or care. So I ended the moronic topic with a poor joke about gallente..... 2 (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3036.msg45939#msg45939)]
I hope you all go out of this with: that you cant crusade your ideas or views on others in their bubble.
...
First things first. Im not trying to create some "christian standard" for morality. If Im doing anything, I suppose, its a Kantian exercise, trying to create a priori moral understanding of a subject so we can talk about its existence in game. You have no idea what my religion is, or if I even have one, by design.
Kantian exercise...now it gets funny.... I see, I can roast someone again :P....
Please explain to me an Kantian exercise. Take your time and write, what you think it is down (And dont forget, I have all his books in german and speak german... they are all just 2 meters away from my keyboard :) ).... So lets roll. I ask this because... like I already said to Seriphen, that Im a postivist and a huge Popper fan [3 (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3099.msg46548#msg46548)] [4 (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3230.msg49455#msg49455)]. So "I give a f--k about feelings or which whore had shit you out or in which country its happends" (A saying of my old officer in the BW :P). I just care about reality and that this 12 page discussion about hot air comes to an end.
As for an example where the slave wasn't harmed or denied the shared benefit of their own labor or expertise? You ever heard about the tironian notes? They've been even named after the slave who developed them, allegedly: Marcus Tullius Tiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Tullius_Tiro)?
I see someone had latin in school too.... I you had to start with Ciceros letters to his friend Atticus too? Good I hate it.... or I had latin so much (just Ceasar...he was always easy. Like he said "Dont use grammer which you arent sure how to use" :P)....
On another note.... when I think of slavery I think of Leibeigenschaft and than like Nicoletta Mithra of the slavery by the old greeks etc....
P.S. Sorry, if I just take Gotti out, I could take some other too.... Im to lazy right now. Maybe the next days... I will roast some other bubble/borderline comments too :).
[/Battleship mode off]
-
This is just....such a disturbing conversation. Comments are made that Amarrians slavers will not be seen as sympathetic characters, and we have people arguing that slavery at its core isn't so bad, and people are just biased by their own world morality. REALLY?!
:s
-
I think Nicoletta brings up a good point about our images of slavery being heavily influenced by the American approach. In fact, so much of the PF is shaped by an American approach, and I'm not sure if you can argue it's the largest market, considering the population of Europe and Russia.
That aside, there is a PF example in the Burning Life of an enslaved minor race. If they weren't enslaved, they wouldn't have survived. In fact, it is more than likely that the Amarrians have enslaved worlds that were prone to wiping each other out (Kameiras chron mentions anything from 'neolithic tribes' to 'industrial behemoths'). So it depends if a character/player's view if dying free is better than living imprisoned.
-
(post omitted)
-
You know, for a first post, that's a remarkable one.
I'd have to say I agree on every level, which I've articulated similar thoughts and ideas into this conversation already but not as coherently as you've done.
-
Nice post there!
Of note, has the Slavery FP article been brought up for breaking apart? It's a massive article.
-
I brought it up at the very beginning, Seri.
-
Okay :oops:
Yeah I wasn't following that early on...
-
This is just....such a disturbing conversation. Comments are made that Amarrians slavers will not be seen as sympathetic characters, and we have people arguing that slavery at its core isn't so bad, and people are just biased by their own world morality. REALLY?!
:s
Just to make myself clear, if I say:
It seems to me that I've been told now multiple times that playing an Amarr who's portraying the practice and institution of slavery as something that can be good and in certain cases is good is a case of 'U r doin it wrong!'.
The reasons brought up so far are:
1. Historically was never good.
2. Slavery is evil.
3. Slavery is abuse is evil.
So, while I object to point 1. to 3. even if they all were true, these are not sufficient reasons to justify the call of "U r doin it wrong!". Even if Slavery is objectively evil by necessity, it doesn't follow in the least that Amarr can't practice it in a way that makes it appear as acceptable and good as possible.
And say there that I object to points 1 to 3, then I'm not saying that these points are not true, but merely that they are not simply true. There is in my opinion nothing in the term slavery that makes it obvious that it's not good and if we nowadays think that it is obviously not good, then we do so from a point of view that needed more than 500 years to develop, if we see Bartolomé de Las Casas as the one with whom it started.
There has been put a lot of time, thought and debate into that and claiming that it is obvious that slavery is bad or that it's in the word slavery that it is evil or bad is in my opinion - as someone staunchly opposed to slavery IRL - a disservice to those people that poured their heart-blood into the undertaking of showing that slavery is indeed bad. It diminishes the appraisal of their accomplishments in this regard and trivializes the problem of slavery and the problems that are connected to it.
Tl;dr: I really want to make clear that I'm opposed to slavery and think of it as objectively bad. I still think it's trivializing the problem of slavery if one claims that slavery is obviously bad.
-
Cultural relativism could rationalize any behavior as morally acceptable and necessary from a certain point of view. I'm sure one could explain the act of genocide itself at its core isn't wrong from a certain perspective, but it doesn't really address the point that slavery makes Amarrian characters unsympathetic. I suppose I'd take issue with the insinuation that many characters are influenced by their player's personal viewpoints on slavery when three of the four major cultures in New Eden are just as fervently opposed to the idea.
-
I suppose I'd take issue with the insinuation that many characters are influenced by their player's personal viewpoints on slavery when three of the four major cultures in New Eden are just as fervently opposed to the idea.
That's the thing, they're not.
The Caldari aren't fervently opposed to slavery, the general outlook is that it's simply an inefficient business model. The State has never practiced slavery and doesn't have slavery in its history (in fact, it's the only nation that doesn't), not because it's morally reprehensible to them but simply because nothing in their history would have prompted them to use such a system - community is the stronger, more efficient and productive model.
The Minmatar actually have slavery in the Republic but it's only in the higher government areas and certainly not common knowledge.
The Federation has slavery in its past and present, in fact there are a number of lobbyists in the Federation seeking to abolish slavery in the Federation to this day.
-
The Federation has slavery in its past and present, in fact there are a number of lobbyists in the Federation seeking to abolish slavery in the Federation to this day.
If your source is http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Slavery you may have mistaken lobbyists trying to have CONCORD outlaw slavery everywhere for attempts to have slavery outlawed in the Federation itself. Slavery is illegal in the Federation, though illegal slavery 'remains a problem' - much as illegal slavery remains a problem in our own societies.
-
The Minmatar actually have slavery in the Republic but it's only in the higher government areas and certainly not common knowledge.
I'm going to echo Cia's response, but in the Matari context. It's illegal and "abhorred".
-
I suppose I'd take issue with the insinuation that many characters are influenced by their player's personal viewpoints on slavery when three of the four major cultures in New Eden are just as fervently opposed to the idea.
That's the thing, they're not.
The Caldari aren't fervently opposed to slavery, the general outlook is that it's simply an inefficient business model. The State has never practiced slavery and doesn't have slavery in its history (in fact, it's the only nation that doesn't), not because it's morally reprehensible to them but simply because nothing in their history would have prompted them to use such a system - community is the stronger, more efficient and productive model.
The Minmatar actually have slavery in the Republic but it's only in the higher government areas and certainly not common knowledge.
The Federation has slavery in its past and present, in fact there are a number of lobbyists in the Federation seeking to abolish slavery in the Federation to this day.
So the Caldari think the practice is bizarre, but philosophical Practicals think it worth researching. Given the rise of Tibus Heth and opposition to worker exploitation, and even their struggle for independence from the Federation, I think one could make a solid case for why opposition to slavery by a Caldari might not be an unusual stance.
The Federation stopped practicing long ago and openly oppose assimilation by the Empire, and the Minmatar (who were former slaves) are actively fighting to free the rest of their people from bondage. I don't think you're going to find much sympathy for slavery there. The Blood Raiders, Sansha's Nation, Angel Cartel, and unaligned criminals all engage in the practice at the expense of their victims. The fact that the Amarr share the practice with criminals (despite their differences) is another point against them.
I'm not saying, nor did I ever imply that slavery is non-existent outside the Empire, but I think one could make a reasonable extrapolation that a character outside of the Empire might have a negative outlook on slavery.
-
I'm not saying, nor did I ever imply that slavery is non-existent outside the Empire, but I think one could make a reasonable extrapolation that a character outside of the Empire might have a negative outlook on slavery.
I would say most cultures in New Eden would have a very negative outlook on slavery. Therefore the hatred of slavery isn't a position hard to RP for us living in a modern western culture, since we share that outlook. It also isn't hard to play the reverse role: an abusive slaver, since that role also perfectly fits the modern western outlook.
It *is* hard to play a genuinely 'good', non-abusive or humanitarian slaver, since the concept is just so alien to our culture and the subject matter evokes such negative initial visceral responses. You'd not only have to fight your own sense of what is proper, but also need to overcome the biased OOC stereotypes of others (there cannot be good slavers, so its impossible for someone to play a good slaver).
It stands to reason that a functional stable society like the Amarr Empire cannot operate if all of its citizens are immoral depraved people constantly abusing the slave population. Additionally, history provides us with plenty examples that slavery is not and never was universally hated and reviled, and one could have stable progressive societies and practice slavery at the same time.
The stuff gets even harder because among most EVE players, religion, conformism, dogmatism etc. is also very alien to our cultural psyche.
If you cannot OOCly separate our cultural bias against slavery (and religion etc. etc.) from the actual practice, then it would be ideal to play Minmatar characters, and avoid trying to RP believable Amarr characters.
-
Oh I agree Gyra, I wasn't trying to assert that you said it was acceptable outside the Empire in New Eden. My response does appear that way, sorry.
My intention was only to show that slavery occurs (or has) in three of the four major nations even though the general populace is thoroughly against it now. Nothing more.
Cia, I was actually referring to the ones that work to raise awareness of the illegal slavery occurring in the Federation, but it was still misunderstood from my part, forgive me on that.
The idea I was trying to point out is that slavery isn't foreign to most, it's considered illegal in three of the four, hated in two of the four. That's all.
EDIT: My response came from misreading the original post by Gyra and mistaking the world culture for nations. I read too much into it from there, I apologize for the confusion.
-
This is just....such a disturbing conversation. Comments are made that Amarrians slavers will not be seen as sympathetic characters, and we have people arguing that slavery at its core isn't so bad, and people are just biased by their own world morality. REALLY?!:s
Meh..... but here is the problem.... with this FOX news feeling discussion or FOX News like brainless ilogical/undeductiv discussion about "Cultural Relativism". The problem isnt that RL or my RL morality.....that I personally dont like slavery etc....
When I see so comments "slavery at its core isn't so bad, and people are just biased by their own world morality[/i]. REALLY?!:s" or Gottis brain fart:
My problem is that people..... forget how that shit works.... first you have a topic... than you define Slavery and other improtant subjects..... than you make your theory which you like to test*....than you look for errors in the theory.... than you look in the RL..... I know I know.... "This Publius and his nazi Popper stuff." [1] (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=564115#post564115)
Belive me... we can than skip all this crap here.... which shows more about the people on the other site of the monitor than it produce content (Publius looks hellgremlin, Lyn, Gotti etc....).
So back to this thread: Like I mention before I start. I will try to make really ...really, really, really easy example with a discussion which I had with Morwen Lagann. Ehm.....And that I dont forget... the star above:
*this theory which you like to test.... We all know, that all theorys should be logical and deductiv (not like FOX-News like). It means you have a global "law"... the same like in a the deductive-nomological theory (with your explanandum and explans).... so lets say in our fictional case it is:
"Only CCP Primefiction influence players in their RP." (Which means, that a player cant have a influence). Good...
So If someone saids... that my stuff influence players... means it in a logical way... that either I say that my stuff is CCP Primefiction, or it means an logical error on Morwen saids..... So... again... lets see... Morwen said: two times that my stuff influenz other player (here and here).
Lets cheak the his half-ass syllogisms.
* Only CCP Primefiction influence players in their RP.
* Publius stuff is CCP Primefiction.
* Publius stuff infuence a shit load of people. "That affects a ******* huge number of people" (here (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=565641#post565641)).
You see what an error he had done.... his end premise was wrong... and it could only survive with a minor premise which says: "Publius stuff is CCP Primefiction." without this minor premise his whole talk was for shit..... thats why when he wrote: "What you, Publius and a bunch of other people write? That isn't canon." (here (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=563666#post563666)). Is totally... for ass.... he could also write "I love Hamburger". Why?.... with this premise that I dont write prime fiction havent he and me and wyke no problem at all.... I know.... I know "What?!, Amercia?"
Okay...let me explain again... I know it was really hard. His theory would be:
* Only CCP Primefiction influence players in their RP.
* Publius stuff isnt CCP Primefiction.
* Publius stuff infuence a shit load of people.
You see the brainfart?... Yes...Nice, you people are awesome :P (on another note thats why I had the explain in a Fight Club style).....
Now.... Im to laty to explain again...so stupid shit to other like here (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1074129#post1074129).
So I ask you people... what was your theory? How you define Slavery? And most of all can you people see without my help.... your errors? Plz...Plz... :P Plz.... Plz....
I wrote this down.... not because just Im a positivist.... I wrote it, because It will help you people (Publius looks at some of the earlier post) to understand what you people have done without knowing..... like bringing "institution and homosexuality in a correlation together" (which would make rick santorum really happy). Or some other stuff which had me look twice on some topics..... I dont say.... like Gotti: Moroic FOX-News like accusations that some would love slavery in real life.... (here (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55692#msg55692) and to lazy to search for the second ones....)
Long story short: I see just: A fat american moron which sould falsify the other fat american moron :P. This way we wouldnt have a discussion about nice or good (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55688#msg55688)... or "Your question is unfair and biased, and only serves to derail the subject." (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55739#msg55739) those other brainfarts.
So for know... we have two options:
1.) I come ones a week .... laugh my ass of... like on a scripted realiyt TV series.... where you feel always superior as the people which are in. And I can Roast one or two..... Option one would be great for me.
2.) Start to think logical deductiv about this topic. Come up with an theory and in the end (last step), test this thoery white the information we have in the CCP lore. Option Two would be great for me and you.
P.S. And before the first idiot again... writes "Publius nazi men...nazi... you hear me." I love america and I know alot of service persons.... and love them..... But also think some people are even lazier than me here. And that lets me say... "fat american" ...you can do both....say to a fat heartland american that he is lazy or stupid and love the toops and the country..... I know, I know.... "But dude, dude"
-
And ltes start again with an really, really, really, really easy theory.
Theory to checking:
"Is Slavery a Institution in the Amarr Empire?"
Now let use "define Slavery and other improtant subjects.."
First institutions.... I would go with North: North defines institutions as “humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic and social interactions.” Constraints, as North describes, are devised as formal rules (constitutions, laws, property rights) and informal restraints (sanctions, taboos, customs, traditions, code of conduct), which usually contribute to the perpetuation of order and safety within a market or society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_North
Now lets see... If we find nice defintion about slavery?
-
Publius, I think sometimes it's a good idea to waltz along instead of driving a battleship into a wall.
-
Publius, I think sometimes it's a good idea to waltz along instead of driving a battleship into a wall.
I know.... on the other hand... if I wouldnt use battleship mode.... this guy would still think that.... A trillion would be a stupid number for the Amarr Empire.....
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1074129#post1074129
He had learn something.... I know, I know... learning so nazi :P..... but still.... some comments are really.... really bad...and in the wrong hands even dangours..... like Seriphyn ones (on another topic).. which meant that in short form (I know.... he just use it for his democracy and federation example, but as a general axiom)....... that institutions would have an impact in, if a human is homosexual... Which is in the hand of Rick Santorum dangours.... if that would be true.... he could say... that "the Republic of the founding fathers wouldnt led to homosexuality.... and that the current Repbulic with its modern institutions would led to homosexuality"..... which is wrong..... Lets say, Im a homosexuell.... I wouldnt be less homosexuell in the USA or in Europe or in the old america.... Im what Im, sorry , but thats the true.....
Its like the brainfart of the Belarus president against our forgein minister (Westerwell), because of his sexuell preferences.
The same counts for here (this topic)..... If I use some of this brainsfart as axiom... I would just come to illogical(inductiv FOX-News like stuff.... sorry guys.
-
I suppose I'd take issue with the insinuation that many characters are influenced by their player's personal viewpoints on slavery when three of the four major cultures in New Eden are just as fervently opposed to the idea.
You can also take it on the sheer population size itself. The Empire represents probably around half of the cluster population (slaves included). Added to that most pirate factions, it could be said that at least half of the cluster usually practices slavery.
Or, just look at it territory wise. The Empire + Khanid + Ammatar = half of the major factions space.
All of this in the end, is quite relative.
-
It *is* hard to play a genuinely 'good', non-abusive or humanitarian slaver, since the concept is just so alien to our culture and the subject matter evokes such negative initial visceral responses. You'd not only have to fight your own sense of what is proper, but also need to overcome the biased OOC stereotypes of others (there cannot be good slavers, so its impossible for someone to play a good slaver).
I think the real challenge is proving to an audience of players and characters that this humanitarian slaver is a sympathetic character. (I also think we're saying exactly the same thing, just switched around!) A Matari Freedom Fighter is never going to tolerate the slaver no matter how comforting they are to their slaves, just as the preconceptions of a RL audience would find the idea of a slaver abhorrent. Some of the best writers in Earth's history have made barbaric characters into sympathetic ones despite the preconceptions of their audience. Part of that involves immersing the audience in their world to aid the reader to understanding their perspective and motivations.
When people make presumptions that players are influencing their characters' behavior based on their own RL preconceptions, I take issue with that point. I do so because there's clearly enough evidence to show that opposition to slavery isn't a novel concept, or is it at least in the minority in at least half the major cultures in New Eden. I could argue the Caldari are with them, but perhaps we can leave that in a separate discussion.
-
(post omitted)
-
And no has a problem with "Most of the people in New Eden abhor slavery and therefore they would have strong (and negative) feelings about any Ammar they met".
Most of the people in New Eden are Amarrian.
As for the Caldari, I'm not sure they abhor it. They don't use it, but they aren't rending their clothes in grief over the innocent slaves. Individual Caldari might think it's evil, but in general, Amarrian slavery doesn't seem too important to them.
-
After 14 pages, I have no idea what this thread is about.
It seems people are trying to tackle several things;
1) Slavery is seen to be "ok" by most of new eden, so characters should "mostly" be ok with it.
2) Slavery is hated ICly because we hate it OOCly
3) We associate characters with their governments and thats wrong! IE, amarr players are seen as "Evil" because their governments are.
My feelings on them;
1) Most of New Eden dosent include Minmatar, who will hate slavery regardless how "kind" it is to the slaves. Minmatar will likely have a deep cultural hatred of the Amarr, and hence anything connected with them, that would boggle modern minds. You know how much Palestinians hate Israelis? Yeah? Magnify that 4 or 5 thousand times. You might be in the ballpark. If you make an Amarrian character, and try to "play your character", Minmatar characters will play theirs by hating you.
2) Of course we hate it OOCly, because it is a disgusting, barbaric thing. The fact that eve is set in a mythical future otherworld does not make us suddenly hate it less, OOCly. Thats pretty hard to do. We see child porn, animal abuse, and a zillion other things as disgusting (rightly so) and morally reprehensible. If someone RPed these in EVE, would it be wrong to make our characters make judgements because they might be influenced by our OOC feelings?
3) As an American, a rather unorthodox Catholic, and a member of an ethnic minority that gets shit on the world over, allow me to say; we NEVER judge people because of their nationality/skin color/religion/whatever the hell else IRL, right??? Is it right to do so? No, of course not. Is it "In character"? Yes.
-
The waters of this thread are muddy indeed. That is, though, not because the argument hasn't been made clear, but rather because there are several arguments which have been intermingled variously on the one hand and on the other hand because the debate here is oftentimes a less rational and instead more emotional one.
So, it's imho not only the things you brought onto the table, Evelyn. But to start with the ones you have brought up so far:
From what I can tell, no one involved in this thread has a problem with the statement "slavery is bad".
So, I think that while painting with a broad brush, this might be true, there are actually some people here who would deny that: Not because they personally think of slavery as acceptable, but rather because they
a) think that there is no objective way to ascribe the qualities "good" and "bad" to something and thus it is always relative/subjective/culturally dependent whether it in fact is good or bad.
b) think that categories of "bad" and "good" are nonsensical to begin with (which can be for various reasons like the idea that "good" and "bad" refer to emotive stances rather than something with a propostionally relevant content. So, saying "Salvery is evil" would more correspond to "Yuck! Slavery!" Which isn't really something that has a truth value).
And no has a problem with "Most of the people in New Eden abhor slavery and therefore they would have strong (and negative) feelings about any Ammar they met".
I think here the question is, what 'most people in New Eden' is supposed to mean. There are aruments that the Caldari are kind of 'neutral' in regard to slavery outside their turf and think of it more as ineffective than abhorrent. There are arguments that population wise Empire, Mandate and Kingdom (together with the pirate factions) are 'most people in New Eden'.
I think, though, as you said that both of these questions are not the ones which are really heating the debate here:
The trouble seems to be when someone says, "Slavery is bad, Ammar practice slavery, therefore an Ammar character can only be evil." This is fine from the perspective of an in-game character.
This gets closer to the issue and indeed as most people would say that while in-game that's a position that a char can take, it's not as easily bought into as far as it's an OOC position. Though, here it seems to me that people are agreeing largely on this.
However, it seems (or is perceived ) to be an OOC viewpoint as well, which tacks on another little bit "if you play an Ammar character that is 'good', then you must believe slavery is 'good' in real life". This seems to be the true conflict in this thread.
I think that gets closer to the conflict at hand, but I think it's stating the problem in too wide terms. As many people seem to agree that an Amarr can be good despite being a slaver, it seems that most people agree that the player of an Amarr can be good despite playing an Amarrian who is good despite being a slaver. It gets tricky here, though.
((though I'll admit that half of players feel defensive based on a statement similar to "you only hate my character because you hate slavery in real life" so perhaps we are all talking about completely different things in nearly the same way)) It seems safe to say that the only real issue people are having with slavery (in-game and out), is the OOC presumptions being placed on themselves for the character they play.
Indeed, this seems to be the issue that people have: When others put OOC presumptions on some players based on how and which chars they play. This isn't merely a question of good/bad though.
Interestingly, no one seems to think it's a problem if someone portrays an Amarr as evil or evil in so far as he is a slaver. The problem really seems to arise at the specific point that someone portrays an Amarr as slaver and as a benign, gracious and friendly in his function as slaver and towards his slaves - as somone who is appearing as a 'good' slaver.
It seems to me that some people claim that one can be a good Amarr despite being a slaver and it's okay to portray this, but on the other hand it is not possible that an Amarr is good - or appears good - in so far as he is a slaver and that thus portraying an Amarr as being a 'good' slaver is somehow problematic. These problems are by those claiming such explicated in three ways, apparently:
1) The player portraying an Amarr as a good slaver and thus slavery as somehow (possibly) good is unethical (bad if not outright evil) and probably 'pro slavery'.
2) The player that is protraying an Amarr as a good slaver does so because he couldn't bear playing a 'proper slaver' (sic: one portrayed as evil in so far as he enslaves people, though having maybe other redeeming qualities). In this case the player is 'doin it wrong', he is somehow failing to play the role he picked.
3) The player is portraying an Amarr as a good slavers is simply 'doin it wrong'. He picked the wrong role or plays the role of a slaver wrongly. He might be a troll.
These explications rest on the assumption that one cannot portray a slaver as being somehow 'good' in his role and function as slaver and is therefore 'doin it wrong' either in representing what a slaver is or in being mistaken in whether slavery is good or bad.
Somehow these people think that a slaver has to abuse his slaves and won't shy away from abusing them in all possible ways. Apparently, for them the question whether slavery is acceptable or not rests on the question whether slavery implicates abuse by necessity and whether one is able to be somehow 'benign', 'gentle' or 'good' in the function of the slaver.
As if, if there is a slaver who doesn't abuse his slaves, who makes sure that slaves benefit from their work and are treated in some way fairly, are well housed and cared for in terms of food, shelter and medical attention, that then they would be compelled to agree that there are good cases of slavery. This idea, though, is wrong. One would merely have to accept that there are better and worse cases slavery and that one slaver may treat his slaves 'good' in relation to other slavers or a possible treatment of slaves that is worse. This, though only means that within slavery there are relatively better or worse cases. Not that suddenly slavery isn't bad in general anymore.
Of course, though, one would suddenly have to do a lot more to show that slavery is bad. One would have to put a lot more effort into building ones arguments against slavery. One would have to put a hell of a lot more thought into it. Suddenly it wouldn't be as easy as "Slavery is abuse is bad!" anymore. Suddenly the work of Bartolomé de Las Casas wasn't something that wasn't really necessary as it was obvious from the beginning that slavery is unethical. Suddenly the better part of the history of mankind would be more than one gigantic case of people just not seeing the obvious truth that slavery is bad or seeing it and doing it anyway. Suddenly the work and effort and sweat and, yes, blood that has been put into bringing it to the fore that slavery is bad makes a lot of sense and is something to be genuinely valued.
But enough of my pleading to see the problem whether slavery is good or bad or neutral as just that: a true and full fledged problem.
I think the real challenge is proving to an audience of players and characters that this humanitarian slaver is a sympathetic character. [...] Some of the best writers in Earth's history have made barbaric characters into sympathetic ones despite the preconceptions of their audience. Part of that involves immersing the audience in their world to aid the reader to understanding their perspective and motivations.[...]
That, exactly. And I take issue with people who are telling me that I am either a) doing it fundamentally wrong or b) am an unethical person if I try myself at doing things that are similar to what 'some of the best writers in Earth's history' have done. I have various reasons for portraying a character that is a humanitarian slaver and who is not only overall sympathetic but also sympathetic in the way she treats her slaves: next to making a case for taking the problem whether slavery is good or bad or neutral seriously it's about critique at taking certain of our social institutions as good without second guessing that and provoking thought about how we treat the lower rungs of our societies.
-
(post omitted)
-
[...]So, well. I dunno. It's very possible that the greater part of this debate boils down to a 'you're doing it wrong' argument. (and Nicoletta posts as I'm typing these very words)
Well, thanks for summing up my argument. :D
a) think that there is no objective way to ascribe the qualities "good" and "bad" to something and thus it is always relative/subjective/culturally dependent whether it in fact is good or bad.
b) think that categories of "bad" and "good" are nonsensical to begin with (which can be for various reasons like the idea that "good" and "bad" refer to emotive stances rather than something with a propostionally relevant content. So, saying "Salvery is evil" would more correspond to "Yuck! Slavery!" Which isn't really something that has a truth value).
Oh dear. Then truly we are lost, because relative or nonsensical values attributed to terms of morality is a very different, much bigger, much muddier debate. <3
I should probably stick with the 'bloodelf space lesbian barbie simulator' where the biggest problem is spatial awareness. Words are hard. :(
Well, I think the positive thing is indeed, that it is a very different, much bigger, much muddier debate. Once identified as such, I think we can just ignore that question here, in so far as it has little bearing on the "you're doing it wrong" argument. If someone wants to debate the nature of terms of morality and their capability for truth - a quite interesting debate, certainly, they can do so somewhere else, I think.
-
Well, seems I've missed a good deal of this discussion...
Regardless I'll go right ahead and say that (from an IC standpoint) I do have a problem with the statement "Slavery is bad." I know that on a few occasions I've actually been able to explain my character's reasoning for why she supports slavery as a concept, but sadly those occasions are few and far between. More often than not the discussions all lead off into heavily OOC/IRL flavored debate points. Notably, in one instance, I wasn't allowed to really get a word in edgewise after having someone link the Webster's Dictionary definition for slavery. Now, I'm all for passionate response and I do understand that some characters do legitimately get riled up, rabid, and downright rude when some issues come up and I have no problems with that. But at the same time it can be rather frustrating when an otherwise usually calm and well spoken character ends up shouting and insulting you (your character) to the point that it is "impossible" to carry on with further conversation.
-
Oh dear. Then truly we are lost, because relative or nonsensical values attributed to terms of morality is a very different, much bigger, much muddier debate. <3
Isn't it ? I just tend to take issues with assertions of "good" and "evil". Especially the last one. I have nothing against the first one (good) as long as it does not get associated with the latter (evil). Edit : I do not mind it used so much IRL even if it makes me grin at times, since it is mostly how we think and how we got raised in our own culture, but when it starts to be applied OOCly at Eve, a society that defines itself completely alien and different from our own, it is annoying.
If we start to use such subjective concepts in the discussion, then the debate about cultural relativism becomes unfortunately impossible to avoid.
Fortunately though, even people that disagree with me OOCly at least agree with the fact that New Eden is grimdark/dystopian as hell and that anyway, everyone will have his evil side.
Unfortunately, this is precisely because of such OOC influenced points of view that playing very alien or different cultures and mindsets gets very tiresome when you perfectly know that it is not even the character arguing against yours that is speaking anymore, but the player behind. It tends to be quite obvious most of the time. That's what I stopped playing mostly. As mature and serious the eve RP community is, it seems to me that eve setting still shows far too complex and alien sometimes for people to often forget the OOC/IC holy barrier.
-
Well, Lyn, it's not quite clear - your claim nonewithstanding - that "good" and "evil" are 'subjective concepts'. There are good reasons that they can't be subjective, indeed to me it seems quite clear that anyone claiming that they are hasn't understood what their actual meaning is, but that is really another debate, it has little to none impact on why people are breaking the IC/OOC divide.
As to doing that: You're forgetting the IC/OOC divide yourself the moment you claim that "you perfectly know that it is not even the character arguing against yours that is speaking anymore, but the player behind". I don't think that you really have the opportunity to acquire perfect knowledge of that kind in chat interactions in EVE. So I think this really is a bad argument as it's premises depend on you having committed the very action that you aim to repudiate.
-
Well, Lyn, it's not quite clear - your claim nonewithstanding - that "good" and "evil" are 'subjective concepts'. There are good reasons that they can't be subjective, indeed to me it seems quite clear that anyone claiming that they are hasn't understood what their actual meaning is, but that is really another debate, it has little to none impact on why people are breaking the IC/OOC divide.
I'm not sure to understand your point correctly but if you are suggesting that we are speaking about an objective good and evil, then I really doubt that any of use will be able to use these words again in all objectivity...
As to doing that: You're forgetting the IC/OOC divide yourself the moment you claim that "you perfectly know that it is not even the character arguing against yours that is speaking anymore, but the player behind". I don't think that you really have the opportunity to acquire perfect knowledge of that kind in chat interactions in EVE. So I think this really is a bad argument as it's premises depend on you having committed the very action that you aim to repudiate.
How so ?
I can understand it's a terrible argument - and actually I don't even think it was supposed to be one in the first place, just my empirical feeling on the matter. But I don't see how it makes me guilty of the same by making that claim.
-
I don't think I understand the purpose of this thread. :ugh:
-
Whether someone's character is for or against slavery, I assume the player is against slavery. It makes things easier.
As for Nicoletta's view regarding good and evil, I believe she's suggesting that good and evil can only exist objectively. Something that's subjectively evil can't be classified as evil, it's simply wrong in a given situation or cultural context.
I've heard the same distinction applied to morality vs ethics.
I don't think I understand the purpose of this thread. :ugh:
I knew it when the thread started, but have since forgotten.
-
Threads like this are proof that evolution occurs...
... or perhaps just mutation.
Either way, this thread appears to be a living and growing creature, learning and maturing as more information and viewpoints are added.
inb4 skynet.
-
It's a general discussion topic about slavery in New Eden. That's what it's about.
-
Yes, but nobody understands what the hell Publius is saying... :P
Also, I'll just leave this (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html) here.
-
Yes, but nobody understands what the hell Publius is saying... :P
Publius seemed to be making a literal brain dump, and words where irritatingly in his way.
-
Publius is NNS of English.
-
Yes, but nobody understands what the hell Publius is saying... :P
Publius seemed to be making a literal brain dump, and words where irritatingly in his way.
Seriphyn is right.... Im not a NNS english speaker..... and like I said here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1072234#post1072234
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1072548#post1072548
"No problem..... (and yes it isnt my first language). But you can hate on it or on me P. It is the internet and we are free P.... And most of all: you are not be the first english speaker which pointed that out... (and I have no problem with it, it helps me actually):p."
So If you have any questions ask...... if you have and falzification points to bring, bring them.... I have no problem with it. :) cut dont bring something like: 2+3=6 or in Gottis case..... something out of thin air..... like I said.... I will not go in a FOX NEWS diskussuion.
So now back.... to my "literal brain dump, and words where irritatingly in his way." I see some people have still a problem with my example.... was really hard. So I explain.
One day there was a Men ...his Name was Wyke. He had made in the officiall Forum a comment. Another player had made after that his comment..... Like we know it form the internet.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=49608
He made some comments and I made some comments. Her are my:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=561575#post561575
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=561500#post561500
And one day a little girl walks in that topic and writes:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=563666#post563666
"Right, uh... first off, the FP is entirely made up of canon, official lore.
What you, Publius and a bunch of other people write? That isn't canon. The moment you start reinterpreting or extrapolating from the information available to us from official sources, however reasonable and realistic it may seem, you are still making it up and pulling it out of your ass. Only when CCP staff come along, look at it, and then find a way to wedge it into the existing canon that makes sense and fits with their master plan, does your stuff become canon.
There's a little disclaimer on the wiki when you write posts, by the way - it says something along the lines of "don't submit anything if you don't want it to potentially be edited mercilessly by others." It seems that you missed it.
Second, there was a good cause for your stuff to be moved/deleted: it didn't fit in with what CCP had written. Get over yourself, dude, and stop taking this so personally."
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=564713#post564713
"Publius, my post wasn't directed at you. Hell, you were only mentioned as an example of someone who writes a lot of good stuff, some of which isn't canon. I didn't accuse you of saying it was at all - so the one putting words in someone else's mouth is you, not me.
The fiction portal isn't for player-written stuff that is extrapolated or based on established PF. It's for stuff that is established PF, as determined by CCP and no-one else. Wyke appears to be having a misunderstanding with either that, or the fact that as Seri wrote while I was at dinner, we all knew this was coming.
Contributing to the wiki is great. It's awesome that there are people actively working to keep things neat and organized and filling in holes - but again, as Seri said, that shouldn't be our job. It's CCP's job, because they're the ones who actually know the wheat from the chaff, not us.
CCP told us a year ago that they were finally going to devote time and people to the task - they've finally gotten the first round of the end product finished and put it out for us to see. This just means that a ton of the stuff players have done, is going to be tossed aside while CCP decides whether it fits in with their master plan or not.
It doesn't mean people need to get all up in arms about it, as Wyke has done.
Jowen: I would expect as much, myself - with the amount of time and effort CCP has put into the FP, I'm willing to forgive some typos and other small mistakes like that, given the massive amount of information that's been dumped onto our laps everywhere else."
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=565277#post565277
"Because as I stated further down in that post, they've decided it fits in with their "master plan" for the universe. What's wrong with that?
I don't understand what the hell people are up in arms over.
There's a stupidly large amount of stuff to sift through before player-written stuff even enters into the equation. If people expected CCP to do it all in one go, including the process of vetting the player-written stuff that suits their vision, they should probably get their heads out of the clouds and their feet back on the ground.
It's one thing to create a fluff holovid series like Ken did with CPF Blue (see: Naga description), and another entirely to (using Publius' work as an example, again) slap together a huge diagram of how the Amarrian government is organized, or something similar for a megacorporation. The former is unobtrusive and doesn't affect anyone, really. It's a "yes, and..." to borrow the improv phrase. The latter isn't. That affects a ******* huge number of people. That takes time for CCP to go through and verify that it meshes with what they have already. Time for them to, if it does, go through it and clean it up, and tweak it as necessary to make it perfect.
Stuff that potentially falls in the latter category is a lot less likely to be pulled in its entirety on the first go. That doesn't mean that it won't at all - it very well might be in small manageable pieces that don't conflict with CCP's vision - but it'll take a lot longer to be vetted than a holovid series. Because really, that **** rots your brain. Didn't your mother ever tell you that?"
So know lets get this comment in a logical-deductiv order....we are here not on FOX-News (so no illoical-inductiv stuff). So we all know syllogism is. As example I can bring:
All men are mortal. (Mayor Premise)
All Greeks are men. (Minor Premise)
All Greeks are mortal
We all know what deductiv is?... Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
So he.... Morwen had.... I is conclusion that:
* Publius stuff infuence a shit load of people. "That affects a ******* huge number of people". Can be found here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=565641#post565641
I have try to rework how, he - Morwen - comes to his conclusion.
So back again. .. I go from a global law.... an axiom or mayor premise (you can call like love,,, I call it Gesetz, as had Popper don it).... down to a minor premise and come than to an conclusion..... thats its call deductiv....
So in your case it is:
* Only CCP Primefiction influence players in their RP. So your conlusion should be:
* Publius stuff infuence a shit load of people.
But there is something missing or?.... Yes it is... a minor premise.... do go sown from the a global law to the conclusion.....
So that Morwens.... syllogism works.... he needs this minor premise:
* Publius stuff is CCP Primefiction.
Or it will be illogical inductiv. Thats why I had again and again said... here:
That my shit isnt canon
Or in Popper term.... Y= My stuff... X= Canon.... so my stuff is "ungleiche Menge"/different quantities of X (see it as two circle which never touch each other)..... And I never said something else.... get it?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=564115#post564115
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=565641#post565641
To falsify his syllogism... or that syllogism which had should use, but hadnt :P
So now to the syllogism he had use:
* Only CCP Primefiction influence players in their RP.
* Publius stuff isnt CCP Primefiction.
* Publius stuff infuence a shit load of people.
The minor premise is now change.... why because of his comment that:
"What you, Publius and a bunch of other people write? That isn't canon." here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=563666#post563666
So.... Long Story... short.... you can see that when I sturctur his comments... and bring them down to a gesetz/law..... that t isnt bad or nazi... or anti-american.... it isnt something bad to use Popper or postivistic ideas.... and isnt bad to stop a FOX-News discussion :P
So after I have said it isnt bad... now back to my larger point. As you see, there is a porblem I his argumention line. In case A (with the minor premise: Publius stuff is CCP Primefiction.), can it be falzify with my comment and my constribution history... that I dont write canon. As for case B (with the minor premise: Publius stuff isnt CCP Primefiction.), pur logical thinking can falzify his argumention.
And again. I dont say my stuff is the final word. It stand so long until you (Merdaneth) falsify it. And about falzifaction Im not hard..... yu can bring a gestz or quote from which person you like....
I had ones qoute Hartmut Esser: Institutionen handeln nicht nur menschen in Institutionen. Institutions dont act, only people in institutions. To falzify a Idea, which where had to oposite as axiom. By the way like I said before Im not the soziologie guy... more the VWL. :P But beack to the topic: How does it come, I mean such errors? Like I said some time before.... many scholars.... forget that... and go for an extrem theory which sells good.
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3140.msg47524#msg47524
By the way great vid: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
by the way nice vid (Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions)
-
I'm not hating on you at all. :) I just think your apparent pride in having "refuted" an argument cannot be validated if nobody understood you - not because your reasoning was over our collective head but because we literally cannot parse your posts.
To be perfectly honest, what little I could make out seemed like it could be moderated if I understood it properly, but I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt in cases like this. I try not to be an ass all the time. :P
-
I'm not hating on you at all. :) I just think your apparent pride in having "refuted" an argument cannot be validated if nobody understood you - not because your reasoning was over our collective head but because we literally cannot parse your posts.
To be perfectly honest, what little I could make out seemed like it could be moderated if I understood it properly, but I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt in cases like this. I try not to be an ass all the time. :P
I have try to rework it..... see post before.... your ghost edit was faster :P
Edit: If there is any question.... ask.... I have no problem, with that... and will try to show.... which are were the errors... from Gotti and and some others.... like I said... If there is any misunderstanding... or wrong use of words. Just post it. I can just get better from it, I cant get better on nothing or hot air :P . So logical criticism is always welcome.
Yes, but nobody understands what the hell Publius is saying... :P
Publius seemed to be making a literal brain dump, and words where irritatingly in his way.
Like I said you can falzify me any time :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
When you have done it.... than go tru this topic.... and you will see WHY I made the old post in the first place: http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55922#msg55922
I hadnt made it without a reason.
-
By the way great vid: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
Actually, this is a typical example to me of someone claiming a lot of pure (and falsifiable) nonsense.
A lot of emotional argumentation, lots of false conclusions.
The issue with morality is a lack of clearly defined goals/boundaries. If people disagree about the goals or fail to define goals properly, they will obviously disagree about the methods to reach those goals. Regardless of there are multiple ways to reach those goals (some may more optimal than others).
That is why Sam isn't a good physicist (or perhaps a chess player), it is because the problems and goals of physics and chess are clearly defined, and his answer are verifiably worse than other answers.
I think science can certainly have answers to question of morality, but Sam is a very poor scientist in that regard.
Insofar the fictional world of EVE goes, its rather simple: those who convince more people of their point of view are right. There are those that give more emphasis to authority (CCP), those who give prefer logic and internal consistency and those who prefer maximum expressive space (and perhaps other things) on a continuum.
I don't care much about authority for example, and my claim is that you can play this game perfectly without reading much PF. In fact, it is my claim that the majority of the players (90%+) read less than 1% of the available prime fiction and they have no problem at all playing. The content of the debate your example is largely meaningless to me as a result.
As far as slavery is concerned, I don't think we can have a 'right' answer unless we define what is right first (define a goal). But we can talk about how different definitions and perceptions of slavery affects us and our play. We are seeing certain patterns and encounter common obstacles which seem to obstruct that not yet clearly defined by somewhat visible common goal. That is what I find interesting to talk about.
by the way nice vid (Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions)
[/quote]
-
The content of the debate your example is largely meaningless to me as a result.
thats why I said an example :) .... see here:
"So back to this thread: Like I mention before I start. I will try to make really ...really, really, really easy example with a discussion which I had with Morwen Lagann."
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55922#msg55922
And as I see in your post.... It had work. You have learned something... or at least try to think outside of the methotic of the how this discussion had work before my hate rant :P .
Now..... the next step my friend.
As far as slavery is concerned, I don't think we can have a 'right' answer unless we define what is right first (define a goal). But we can talk about how different definitions and perceptions of slavery affects us and our play. We are seeing certain patterns and encounter common obstacles which seem to obstruct that not yet clearly defined by somewhat visible common goal. That is what I find interesting to talk about.
See.... that what I have said here:
"My problem is that people..... forget how that shit works.... first you have a topic... than you define Slavery and other improtant subjects..... than you make your theory which you like to test*....than you look for errors in the theory.... than you look in the RL..... I know I know.... "This Publius and his nazi Popper stuff."
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55922#msg55922
And have try to split even the topic see here:
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55923#msg55923
See If you read my comments.... you arent losing something.... we all get something
"So for know... we have two options:
1.) I come ones a week .... laugh my ass of... like on a scripted realiyt TV series.... where you feel always superior as the people which are in. And I can Roast one or two..... Option one would be great for me.
2.) Start to think logical deductiv about this topic. Come up with an theory and in the end (last step), test this thoery white the information we have in the CCP lore. Option Two would be great for me and you."
Insofar the fictional world of EVE goes, its rather simple: those who convince more people of their point of view are right. There are those that give more emphasis to authority (CCP), those who give prefer logic and internal consistency and those who prefer maximum expressive space (and perhaps other things) on a continuum.
I don't care much about authority for example, and my claim is that you can play this game perfectly without reading much PF. In fact, it is my claim that the majority of the players (90%+) read less than 1% of the available prime fiction and they have no problem at all playing. The content of the debate your example is largely meaningless to me as a result.
And when you can re-write it in a law (If -> than. the larger -> the more, some sort of correlation). I jizzle my pants.... Thats the way I like/love..... If you are in a run. I will give 300 Mio Isk again.... for everyone. Which goes to this topic.... and find any illogical inductiv arguments.
A lot of emotional argumentation, lots of false conclusions.
You have understand..... My work is done :).... You will find now his topic as I have. And maybe even some day you are the guy.... which slaps with Popper around.
As for others ... ehm... to see the errors of some posts in this topic... could be for some hard.... so If someone needs it... or will.... I can step to next level, and explain my Seriphyn example. About "false/overstreach" premises and which impact it can have in conclusions of theorys. Baby steps as I call it :P
-
Publius,
the problem with Popper is, though, that he didn't get it right either. His naive falsificationism has been overhauled at least since Lakatos and Kuhn. Also, we're not really engaging in science here, which Popper tried to describe normatively.
Instead we're engaging in debate, something that follows quite distinct processes from scientific research. Sure, you've a valid point if you ask for clearly structured arguments that are logically sound. But, well, it's something you can't expect from people who haven't had a course in logic (preferrably philosophical logic, I think as mathematical logic rarely teaches how to do logic in your mother tongue as it focuses on the formal aspects).
The important point in a debate - outside of the philosophical institutes of academia - is that every opinion has to be taken seriously. The principle of charity should be applied.
Slapping people with Popperian positivistic falsificationism - which, as I pointed out above has been, ironically, falsified in philosophy of science in it's naive form at least - doesn't help either way. Insisting on using his model of scientific research for structuring a debate is comitting a category error.
That said:
Merdaneth is right in regard to Sam Harris' vid. He defines the ethical values in purely materialistic, scientific terms and then starts to argue that the questions about ethical values are answerable by science. This, clearly, is a petitio principii. I think it also shows that he is missing something that is quite important about ethical values.
So, though I agree with him that science can provide knowledge that is needed to answer some ethical questions and is therefore an important factor in ethics, I don't see him showing in the least that science is sufficient to answer those questions. And then, Confucius already said "all knowledge is ethical knowledge". Aristotle had it in his Nicomachean Ethics, too.
It's really nothing new and Sam Harris emotional talk and advertisement for the supremacy of science isn't what I'd recommend to people if they'd want to learn about what science can contribute to ethics.
-
It's really nothing new and Sam Harris emotional talk and advertisement for the supremacy of science isn't what I'd recommend to people if they'd want to learn about what science can contribute to ethics.
I agree.... but for people how havent seen him. It could be intressting.
Publius,
the problem with Popper is, though, that he didn't get it right either. His naive falsificationism has been overhauled at least since Lakatos and Kuhn. Also, we're not really engaging in science here, which Popper tried to describe normatively.
overhauled: No. I think a miss understanding was that how can I tell..., the Gewichtigung/weight which had Lakaros give to Poppers postivistic view (which he had in some parts of his modles). Im on this point (postivisms) more on the M. Friedman site (as VWLer/Economics not surpising :P ).... which had had wrote (in his tree example)... that is more or less a tool to get theorys working (which is my goal here, to get some stuff working.
http://library.northsouth.edu/Upload/THE%20PHILOSOPHY%20OF%20ECONOMICS.pdf#page=154
So Lakaros point which is almost (Constructvitsic):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology
"There are no pure data, which consist only of observation. Any statement containing theory, and any observation is only possible because it is based on a theory."
Would I come with Friedmans tree example: "Let us turn now to another example, this time a constructed one designed to be an analogue of many hypotheses in the social sciences. Consider the density of leaves around a tree. I suggest the hypothesis that the leaves are positioned as if each leaf deliberately sought to maximize the amount of sunlight it receives, given the position of its neighbors, as if it knew the physical laws determining the amount of sunlight that would be received in various positions and could move rapidly or instantaneously from any one position to any other desired and unoccupied position. 14 Now some of the more obvious implications of this hypothesis are clearly consistent with experience: for example, leaves are in general denser on the south than on the north side of trees but, as the hypothesis implies, less so or not at all on the northern slope of a hill or when the south side of the trees is shaded in some other way. Is the hypothesis rendered unacceptable or invalid because, so far as we know, leaves do not “deliberate” or consciously “seek,” have not been to school and learned the relevant laws of science or the mathematics required to calculate the “optimum” position, and cannot move from position to position? Clearly, none of these contradictions of the hypothesis is vitally relevant; the phenomena involved are not within the “class of phenomena the hypothesis is designed to explain”; the hypothesis does not assert that leaves do these things but only that their density is the same as if they did. Despite the apparent falsity of the “assumptions” of the hypothesis, it has great plausibility because of the conformity of its implications with observation. We are inclined to “explain” its validity on the ground that sunlight contributes to the growth of leaves and that hence leaves will grow denser or more putative leaves survive where there is more sun, so the result achieved by purely passive adaptation to external circumstances is the same as the result that would be achieved by deliberate accommodation to them. This alternative hypothesis is more attractive than the constructed hypothesis not because its “assumptions” are more “realistic” but rather because it is part of a more general theory that applies to a wider variety of phenomena, of which the position of leaves around a tree is a special case, has more implications capable of being contradicted, and has failed to be contradicted under a wider variety of circumstances. The direct evidence for the growth of leaves is in this way strengthened by the indirect evidence from the other phenomena to which the more general theory applies.
The constructed hypothesis is presumably valid, that is, yields “sufficiently” accurate predictions about the density of leaves, only for a particular class of circumstances. I do not know what these circumstances are or how to define them. It seems obvious, however, that in this example the “assumptions” of the theory will play no part in specifying them: the kind of tree, the character of the soil, etc., are the types of variables that are likely to define its range of validity, not the ability of the leaves to do complicated mathematics or to move from place to place." etc....
Instead we're engaging in debate, something that follows quite distinct processes from scientific research. Sure, you've a valid point if you ask for clearly structured arguments that are logically sound. But, well, it's something you can't expect from people who haven't had a course in logic (preferrably philosophical logic, I think as mathematical logic rarely teaches how to do logic in your mother tongue as it focuses on the formal aspects).
The important point in a debate - outside of the philosophical institutes of academia - is that every opinion has to be taken seriously. The principle of charity should be applied.
Slapping people with Popperian positivistic falsificationism - which, as I pointed out above has been, ironically, falsified in philosophy of science in it's naive form at least - doesn't help either way. Insisting on using his model of scientific research for structuring a debate is comitting a category error.
Thats is the error... I see.... just look beyond page 7.... I get tickling in my skin; if I read that stuff. Some reasoning, some postivitims (so that we dont get some culturell realtisms debate), and some Popper arnt hurtful.... in the oposit even. It will just help this discussion.
-
Friedman's tree example is theory laden. It assumes a lot of things: That leafs of trees are used for photosynthesis, that optimal sunlight exposition is 'sought' after for this process, the mathematics that one needs to predict optimal leaf density at positions etc.pp.
Also, there are many problems with naive falsificationism beyond what Lakatos has been hinting at. Among other things, that science simply isn't done like Popper would've liked it to be done in his theory. If you take a look at the state of the field of philosophy of science, you'd notice that Popper is simply outdated for several good reasons. That he's playing a role, still, is more or less caused by the fact that the newer theories of scientific process haven't been absorbed into the other disciplines.
I've been taught in my scientific studies that Popper is the height of how science has to be done. The physicist at the university already knew it's outdated. Having had philosophy as a secondary subject, I learned how outdated Popper is. Popper is, the way he himself envisioned his falsificationism, practically as dead as Popper himself or Friedman as well - some people just didn't take notice of that, yet.
Insisting on Popper won't lead that far. It is, after all a debate, not even an exercise of or attempt at scientific explanation. Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. It won't convince anybody of anything. It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy. If your skin tickles, than that's because you subscribe to Poppers doctrine, not because you're right and the cultural relativist is wrong without further qualification. You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"
Also, that aside: As I already said, Popper tries to give a model of how science should be done. We aren't doing science here. So, applying Popper here is just misapplying his theories. Arguments in debates aren't scientific theories/explanations. Simple as that.
One can't expect from people having a debate on a forum on internetspaceships that they first take a course in classical logic and some other subjects before they are allowed to participate. Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate. (Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.) But being a good old German battleship about that doesn't help here. People won't develop skills in logics because of your rant here. Best thing you'll get is that people who already have those skills and forgot to apply them will get to that. One doesn't need a rant for that, though. A polite reminder is usually enough.
-
Friedman's tree example is theory laden. It assumes a lot of things: That leafs of trees are used for photosynthesis, that optimal sunlight exposition is 'sought' after for this process, the mathematics that one needs to predict optimal leaf density at positions etc.pp.
Also, there are many problems with naive falsificationism beyond what Lakatos has been hinting at. Among other things, that science simply isn't done like Popper would've liked it to be done in his theory. If you take a look at the state of the field of philosophy of science, you'd notice that Popper is simply outdated for several good reasons. That he's playing a role, still, is more or less caused by the fact that the newer theories of scientific process haven't been absorbed into the other disciplines.
And there is one problem..... what you call "naive falsificationism" or Lakatos and Kuhn as done. I would say isnt a falzifacation or overhaul of science. It is just a contructivistist model which stays next the Popper or the positivmus etc.... About outdate I would say the opposit. My girlfriend has study physics and she is and as second subject theoretic mathematic. There you learn how to work in a world without full infomation.... Which is the mainy anti-point of positivsm critque. So if you write is outdate. Which is your outlook? I mean whats your examples. I mean the contructivisc science which you proposal (as modern, post-Popper) is actually totally out of left field. This can be seen in physics. Stephan Hawkings and Mias had works on the topic of wissenschaftliche Beweise bei restrikten infromation/scientific evidence with restricted information (will come with the exact title the next days).
But like I said...Im always for any falcifaction. So If you have a work (not just words) to throw had me it would be great.... To see this new contructicstic world.
Insisting on Popper won't lead that far. It is, after all a debate, not even an exercise of or attempt at scientific explanation. Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. It won't convince anybody of anything. It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy. If your skin tickles, than that's because you subscribe to Poppers doctrine, not because you're right and the cultural relativist is wrong without further qualification. You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"
As if you read.... "Some reasoning, some postivitims (so that we dont get some culturell realtisms debate),": So it is the positivms, which stand as point.
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56355#msg56355
And why Im doing this? Is a question you can answer. :P
Friedman's tree example is theory laden. It assumes a lot of things: That leafs of trees are used for photosynthesis, that optimal sunlight exposition is 'sought' after for this process, the mathematics that one needs to predict optimal leaf density at positions etc.pp.
Oh...see.... He had a larger point. Like I said. See it as tool, which can fix things. Thats his approach to the positivism. Many constructivistc scholar (like ours mention before). Have a always critque the positivms of his "welt sehen"/world seeing. He say more or less that it doesnt matter as long, you can formulate a hyptheses (of course the book is longer than my two copy past lines).
Insisting on Popper won't lead that far. It is, after all a debate, not even an exercise of or attempt at scientific explanation. Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. It won't convince anybody of anything. It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy. If your skin tickles, than that's because you subscribe to Poppers doctrine, not because you're right and the cultural relativist is wrong without further qualification. You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!
Arrrg...Dude... what I wrote always.... read all the stuff...all the links which I give all the books... which I link.
so back what I have I wrote:
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55922#msg55922
"My problem is that people..... forget how that shit works.... first you have a topic... than you define Slavery and other improtant subjects..... than you make your theory which you like to test*....than you look for errors in the theory.... than you look in the RL..... I know I know.... "This Publius and his nazi Popper stuff. [...]*this theory which you like to test.... We all know, that all theorys should be logical and deductiv (not like FOX-News like). It means you have a global "law"... the same like in a the deductive-nomological theory (with your explanandum and explans)...."
See.... Popper is just the start.... that people understand where I come from. The next point when we all agree that we make Postivistic science. That we define the words. We make our theory logical and deductiv (and falsifiable).
See... as you can see on Morwen comments I can make a nothing out of it. Like I already said. He could also wrote "I love Hamburgers." It would make the same sence. Thats is my critque.
Again... It isnt just Popper. It isnt just the Postivisms. It is the whole package. And agian my offer still stands. When Im back eveyone which shows the errors of the comments (page 7-13). Of some people gets 300 Mio isk. So again I repeat so that it gets understand. You see an logical error in a argumention (which I already can see 4). The post them here. So that this discussion moves on. A discussion on 100 pages, about the same topic and with the same logical errors is just.....
I hope you can see my greater point which I try to make white the first post. And you can be one of the lucky people which gets the 300 Mio. And like I said it easy to get. Read some comments, and find out "ehm, I think, the argumention isnt logical"; and get the money. :P
One can't expect from people having a debate on a forum on internetspaceships that they first take a course in classical logic and some other subjects before they are allowed to participate. Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate. (Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.) But being a good old German battleship about that doesn't help here. People won't develop skills in logics because of your rant here. Best thing you'll get is that people who already have those skills and forgot to apply them will get to that. One doesn't need a rant for that, though. A polite reminder is usually enough.
See. I think Battleship had help more. I know my folks. So Im first surpirse that nobody, had come around the corner and said..."Dude, Popper is a nazi".
So as a veteran on this, I think Battleship can help and has help. But that is a style question and doesnt change the content. I could be friendly (but my LA friendly mask on, and lie to people); but It would change the problem which this thread had face since page ~7. If I say it nice, would it change this reality, of course not.
People won't develop skills in logics because of your rant here. Best thing you'll get is that people who already have those skills and forgot to apply them will get to that. One doesn't need a rant for that, though. A polite reminder is usually enough.
So many cases in which it had work :P . So many. But like I already said. It is a question of style not content. I talk about content all day long and as you see; I will answer every content question as you like or wish.
I've been taught in my scientific studies that Popper is the height of how science has to be done. The physicist at the university already knew it's outdated. Having had philosophy as a secondary subject, I learned how outdated Popper is. Popper is, the way he himself envisioned his falsificationism, practically as dead as Popper himself or Friedman as well - some people just didn't take notice of that, yet.
Like I already said. Throw some books at me. But plz outside of the construvtistc science. Im as you had already saw, not a huge fan of it. I dont say like Mia that it isnt science. But I have large doubts about Lakatos model of science (and not just the constructivsitc ideas).
Edit: totally forgot the one question. "You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"
Now bcak.... to that I let stand the postivism against it....so the question would be: "You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering postivisms around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"
As you and all other know.... Positivism is a philosophy of science based on the view that in the social as well as natural sciences, data derived from sensory experience, and logical and mathematical treatments of such data, are together the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge. As it nicely stands in the wiki page. What does it mean? It means that I belive we life in a world with gesetzen/laws. Science has the task to find those laws; like Gossens laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossen%27s_laws. The way to find those laws is a hard ones... and had many discussions over the years (Poppers task was more or less a "empiristisches Sinnkriterium zu formulieren" with ot he try to get away from a positvistic view.. .... Im way out of field now).
So back to Positivms.... as a world in there we CAN find those laws without useing normative science.
The cultural relativism trys to avoid own world view on analyse of another culture. So you my ask what is the problem? The problem is that the postivism already avoids this point. It like saying the samething twice.... It is almost in the topic use tautlogical (it isnt equal, thats way it is just almost :P ). As an example or out cry to use postivistic methods. As can be seen here:
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55816#msg55816
There are others too... im to lazy to search.
So know.... we know we can skip all the "culturell relatisms debate; if we just use a postivistic model in the first place. We avoide this way any meaning less discussion about is there any "laws", "knowledge", "views" be outside of the own world view. As it done in the constructivsm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology
Thats why I wrote "Some reasoning, some positivism (so that we dont get some culturell realtisms debate),"
-
If your skin tickles, than that's because you subscribe to Poppers doctrine, not because you're right and the cultural relativist is wrong without further qualification. You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"
Plz read again why my skin tickles.... Im so friendly and read your stuf... and write not just stuff down.
"Thats is the error... I see.... just look beyond page 7.... I get tickling in my skin; if I read that stuff. Some reasoning, some postivitims (so that we dont get some culturell realtisms debate), and some Popper arnt hurtful.... in the oposit even. It will just help this discussion."
As I wrote.... logical deductive arguments arnt aweful.
Like I laready said.... about the 300 mio... I have to add... not just illogical stuff is welcome. If you find some inductive reasoning it is welcome too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
So if you write about "It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy." Like I already said.... you can falzifcy me always...(not forget on stuff which I had wrote , we dont be little Gottis arnt we, and of course your point as to be logical deductiv and falsable). So "Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. " as you see... you have done a Gotti.... as I discribe in the post before. My point was way larger......
As someone how belives in greed.... again.... I have given so many hinds and tips.... can you show me a argument line in thgis topic which is illogical or inductive... and so full of false premises. Yes, you get 300 mio isk.
* You see someone like Nicoletta Mithra post.... which just had "read Popper" and not the whole package, and has instate of falzifacy an argument post just some lines like: "Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy." As poeple see... I have "throw" positivms, and not without reason, my construvistic friends :P
* But has forget the larger Point of an argument, and has on this topic just talk with himself without bringing a argument forward for his standpoint.... done a Morwen :P .... post it here.... you will get 300 mio isk.
* You have saw someone.... which had post a comment which can just work with an global law which says: "individuals dont act/makeing decisions, just cultures (not "social roles"... like the homo sociologicus... I mean cultures as whole). You will get 300 mio.
* This is the most important ones.... and maybe the easiest ones.... You see a comment which is inductive (not deductiv).... post it here. You will get 300 mio.
* You see a comment. Which is not logical, the argument as whole isnt logical and has internal errors.... Post it here.... You will get 300 mio.
* On another not.... as Lyn had hinted...you are affronted, by false as assumptions...like you are x or y. Post it here... I will roast Gotti for you. You have see someone doing a Scumbag Steve move.... ah... its the same... post it.
So overall like Nicoletta Mithra siad: "Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate."* So lets do this and make her and me happy....
________________
by the way....you havent show me a logical answer to:
* ("Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.)" Why isnt that the case in your Book? Plz answer logical and deductiv... thx. I have try to answer all questions, be so friendly...when you do assumptions like "naiv falsizication" is overhauled.... bring the falzification of this models... not a model which stays actually next to it. You are doing than just a normativ assumption. Whithout actually doing science (Hint from Publius.... you will work more with a paradigm change than with an constructism, so more Kuhn). As he will have a explaination for my point (your point). That it is "naive falsificationism".... and not as you thing :P.... So again... take your time... read it again... I havent choose Friedman without a reason. He says in his essay an important error/point in postitivism (next hint: but comes in the end that - this error - it doesnt matter).
Edit: 300 mio isk for every example. Make my tickling go away. As you see Nicoletta my tickle skin comes from many points, and you can help, that it goes away :P
-
The moral case for enslavement, is internally consistent for the Amarrian view. If you accept the presuppositions of the Amarrian faith, you have a moral obligation to limit the amount of souls lost due to their state of rebellion to God.
That is likely the reason most anti-slavers IC either go for an atheist argument or with claiming all holders abuse all slaves (with a possible exception with a minority).
For those going:
Slavery is abuse = All amarrian slaveholders abuse slaves in all ways.
I contest with:
Animal husbandry is abuse = All farmers abuse their animals in all ways.
It is an insane claim for anything else. So it should be here. Can I argue that animal husbandry is abuse of animals? Yes I can, easily enough. There is however no way in I can argue that all farmers abuse their animals beyond the terms of animal husbandry. It is not a consistent argument and nobody would accept this logic in anything else.
As for power corrupts?
For instance prisons. Nobody will argue that prison guards abusing the prisoners happens. However anybody saying this is the majority of prison guard => prisoner relationship will have some serious qualifying to do.
From these flow the question of how many innocent victims of slave abuse there are and especially from Amarr. Remember capsuleers are a minimal fraction of populace.
Amarrian practice of slavery is by internal logic a morally good deed.
Sansha can make a case for their form of slavery either being a moral good or at least with Means to an end argument.
Blood Raiders can make an internally consistent case for slavery being a non moral deed and merely being the way of the world. (Bloodletting, now there is a moral good ;) )
Angel cartel, Serpentis and Guristas (Seven as well) Do not make a moral case for enslaving people. It is a for profit action, end of.
So to return to the analogy of animal husbandry. Which of these would you firebomb first if you believed animal husbandry to be a clear moral evil.
1. a Farm that tries to assure that the animals are well taken care of and only suffer the abuse of animal husbandry, because of their personal believes.
2. a Farm that is only intrested in profit by it's own admission and has no intrest beyond profit to avoid any other abuses from being visited on the animals. And hey if there is a profit in abusing the animals somehow..?
And before we get to "RL Horreeeble person". RL I am not of Amarrian faith nor do I live in Eve universe. IN RL we do not have any moral code that can argue an internally consistent case for the moral goodness of slavery.
WAY OT: Maybe one could actually get there via the codes of Satanism? (Not devil worship for those less familiar with terminology.)
-
This is surreal.
edit: No, Publius, you are actually surreal.
-
This is surreal.
edit: No, Publius, you are actually surreal.
And that is a normativ statement. :P
By the way... nice post Chell Charon, nice to see that this topic gets better now. After it was in the sink. I really have thing about it. I will not just post something here (taht something with an opposite opinion stands here). I think your well thought post deservse a post of the same quality... So I will come up with an idea, to add something or critque something tonight or this weekend (are in holidays soon). As Im not an expert on all faction, I will focus than on the Amarrians than (Amarrian practice of slavery is by internal logic a morally good deed.).
+1 Thumbs up for the post
-
This is surreal.
Yeah, I'm confused, too.
So, general question, in the interests of understanding:
Some people seem to have a deep-seated need for the Caldari to be greedy space nazis, while others seem to want them to be a Randian meritocratic paradise. In much similar vein, it seems to me this debate is about some people wanting the Amarr to be pig-eyed, whip-wielding slavers, while others want them to be basically okay people with a strange quirk in their moral system that they're otherwise very nice about, now there's a good slave, have a cup of tea.
Oh, and then there's some people way out in left field discussing empiricism, Popper, strict logic, and proof structure, as if we're debating philosophy of science, instead of imaginary space people.
Would that be an accurate caricature of the debate, at this point?
-
Would that be an accurate caricature of the debate, at this point?
Seems so. :bash:
-
This is surreal.
Yeah, I'm confused, too.
So, general question, in the interests of understanding:
Some people seem to have a deep-seated need for the Caldari to be greedy space nazis, while others seem to want them to be a Randian meritocratic paradise. In much similar vein, it seems to me this debate is about some people wanting the Amarr to be pig-eyed, whip-wielding slavers, while others want them to be basically okay people with a strange quirk in their moral system that they're otherwise very nice about, now there's a good slave, have a cup of tea.
Oh, and then there's some people way out in left field discussing empiricism, Popper, strict logic, and proof structure, as if we're debating philosophy of science, instead of imaginary space people.
Would that be an accurate caricature of the debate, at this point?
I agree... and I have start to go in left field; because to have a exactly not this discussion:
"debate is about some people wanting the Amarr to be pig-eyed, whip-wielding slavers, while others want them to be basically okay people with a strange quirk in their moral system that they're otherwise very nice about, now there's a good slave, have a cup of tea."
We can than come to some points which we are agree... and acoid a discussion which goes on about those points for 100 of pages. Thats why I love some comments in this topic, and others which ran exactly in the direction as you discribe can be counted, as those I dont like. But I cant just come here and say "you are doing it wrong". What I can is show pepole if they make an error, and that they understand; what my point is. The last point, the understanding, is very important.
I had made an error; which I had made on a discussion earlier with Gotti (that one about exports etc); I have just explain my stuff (not giving a benefit for learning)... and he had clearly not care, so that I ended the discussion with an poor joke. He had learned nothing and my comments where therefore nothing of value.
If I come here. And say, "come on dudes you can do this... so lets look at comment x or y of this person and tell me what he had done wrong?".... is a way in which I try to get away from the point as you discribe (sterotype, IGS discussions). We get to an new/next level.
It is even better, if I give 300 mio do the person himself. So if person X had made a comment on page 8 what is totally... ehm... be nice :P I would say in my new LA style... it isnt totally optimal. If this person even sees his errors... and I give him the money it is something which had an impact and had change things (more than my other discussions, where I just leave a comment).
You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"
As he said... people have to argue why (And I hope he will do it, and show me this "navie" falsification which he talks about is overhauled.... "). I hope that people try to do it now.
Would that be an accurate caricature of the debate, at this point?
Seems so. :bash:
[/quote]
Sorry if I pick you. But it was an easy example for me to show. If people not really look deeper in their comments; they come to wrong conclussions or make an error or talk about a topic which isnt the topic etc..... (this vandalism depatte, where wyke had go to another topic, where he posted this pic about philophers on a hill...... It was his way, of saying that you people dont understand him (made an error on the analysation on his comment); and that he trys to talk about a whole other topic, that whole problem had to be avoided if people had read more carefuly and comment their thoughts more carefuly).
-
...
I havent forget you.... If you believe: Im still thinking.... :) Give me a day or two... ehm... I havent clearly something to add (I have something in mind). But Im not sure if its works.
Edit: As you can see I like to tool around with the homo oeconomicus or RREEMM models....as can be seen here (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3161.msg47948#msg47948). So Im still tooling around on the first line: "The moral case for enslavement, is internally consistent for the Amarrian view. If you accept the presuppositions of the Amarrian faith, you have a moral obligation to limit the amount of souls lost due to their state of rebellion to God." I think about it to make some sort of RREEMM model, which has many lopols for rational actions. Ehmm..... still in the air, I see it as some weird form of asian disease problem :P Where "moral obligation" change our behavier (but like I said WIP).
-
This is surreal.
Yeah, I'm confused, too.
So, general question, in the interests of understanding:
Some people seem to have a deep-seated need for the Caldari to be greedy space nazis, while others seem to want them to be a Randian meritocratic paradise. In much similar vein, it seems to me this debate is about some people wanting the Amarr to be pig-eyed, whip-wielding slavers, while others want them to be basically okay people with a strange quirk in their moral system that they're otherwise very nice about, now there's a good slave, have a cup of tea.
Oh, and then there's some people way out in left field discussing empiricism, Popper, strict logic, and proof structure, as if we're debating philosophy of science, instead of imaginary space people.
Would that be an accurate caricature of the debate, at this point?
That seems like a decent summary.
As the extremes of opinion about the Amarr. It is possible for them to be moral and good people, by their own terms, and yet horrible to an outside observer. It seems to me that before running into the Gallente and Caldari (and then eventually the Jove) the Empire had not yet met anyone who could disagree with it's worldview and be able to force them to live with that.
Evidently the Empire as a whole has not yet come to terms with this. It's an Outside Context Problem of sorts (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession) for a decent explanation of this phrase). Once it has it won't be the same society. Question is, what would it become and will this happen while the game is still live?
As to the notion that pirate slavery is arguably worse. That's valid. My character would even agree. However pirates don't make quite as much noise about why enslaving people is a good and respectable thing to do, or so it seems to me. Oh, with the possible exception of the Sansha.
-
...
I havent forget you.... If you believe: Im still thinking.... :) Give me a day or two... ehm... I havent clearly something to add (I have something in mind). But Im not sure if its works.
Edit: As you can see I like to tool around with the homo oeconomicus or RREEMM models....as can be seen here (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3161.msg47948#msg47948). So Im still tooling around on the first line: "The moral case for enslavement, is internally consistent for the Amarrian view. If you accept the presuppositions of the Amarrian faith, you have a moral obligation to limit the amount of souls lost due to their state of rebellion to God." I think about it to make some sort of RREEMM model, which has many lopols for rational actions. Ehmm..... still in the air, I see it as some weird form of asian disease problem :P Where "moral obligation" change our behavier (but like I said WIP).
Im still thinking about the "intro".
I will come uo with my idea after my vacation :P . As so far I really like your post and your argumention line, I love: "There is however no way in I can argue that all farmers abuse their animals beyond the terms of animal husbandry. It is not a consistent argument and nobody would accept this logic in anything else."
_____________
As general:
As we are on the topic "intro" and "vacation" (tomorrow I can still answer some questions).... I will now drop my poor joke like always gallente joke (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3036.msg46018#msg46018), brit joke 1.0 (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1261732#post1261732), brit joke 2.0 (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1265896#post1265896): As for this poor joke; I need an intro. As we all know "Hot Problems" from Double Take and "Friday" form Rebecca Black. And as most people after they saw "Hot Problems", my first thought was also: That I have done Rebecca Black unjustice, all the stuff which I had said or thought. :P As for this topic.... I have to forgive Tony G... I have done unjustice to him; as I rant how he had describes amarrian slavery (he isnt so aweful after all :P ).
So Tony G; please forgive me, I miss you :P
-
@Publius:
Why is it true that:
[...] Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate. (Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.)
It's quite simple:
Philosophy of science pertains to science.
Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate.
Popperian falsificationism is a theroy of philosophy of science.
Positivism is a stance within philosophy of science.
We do debate here.
-therefore-
Neither Popperian falsificationsim nor positivism pertain to what we are doing here: debating.
qed.
-
@Publius:
Why is it true that:
[...] Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate. (Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.)
It's quite simple:
Philosophy of science pertains to science.
Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate.
Popperian falsificationism is a theroy of philosophy of science.
Positivism is a stance within philosophy of science.
We do debate here.
-therefore-
Neither Popperian falsificationsim nor positivism pertain to what we are doing here: debating.
qed.
Really...on my vacation... I have to come.... and expalin again.....
As I said before..... see here and here.
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56380#msg56380
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55922#msg55922
I quote: "My problem is that people..... forget how that shit works.... first you have a topic... than you define Slavery and other improtant subjects..... than you make your theory which you like to test*....than you look for errors in the theory.... than you look in the RL..... I know I know.... "This Publius and his nazi Popper stuff. [...]*this theory which you like to test.... We all know, that all theorys should be logical and deductiv (not like FOX-News like). It means you have a global "law"... the same like in a the deductive-nomological theory (with your explanandum and explans)...."
See.... Popper is just the start.... that people understand where I come from. The next point when we all agree that we make Postivistic science. That we define the words. We make our theory logical and deductiv (and falsifiable)."
By the way, my "fat amercian" friend :P I found It intressting, that I had show respect to you by answering your questions.... but you dont :)
* Plz show some "debate".... and answer my questions. Second...also show some debate in showing that you read my stuff and try to falcify it..... not just brainfart something down.
And plz do not a Nicoletta again:
* I quote: "You see someone like Nicoletta Mithra post.... which just had "read Popper" and not the whole package, and has instate of falzify an argument post just some lines."
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56406#msg56406
* For a debate.... next time quote the opposite side.... not yourself.... We are not here on FOX News.... I dont like to discuss about your truthiness :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
So now back to your comment: Now...Lets imagen a world...
A world in there I had said, that what you have wrote (and It would be therfore be a debate and not a monolog by your fat ass :P )...
So lets see what you have write as answer to Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.:
"Philosophy of science pertains to science.
Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate.
Popperian falsificationism is a theroy of philosophy of science.
Positivism is a stance within philosophy of science.
We do debate here."
So lets go throw it fast...:
I could go just go with your second axoim, because with it all stay or falls:
* Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate
(which I still ask why?.... but lets say its is true... even if you are to lazy to explain why). And add:
* Philosophy of science does pertain logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments.
So your argument would be: Logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments does not pertain to debate.
http://s1.directupload.net/images/120828/2rgpkkah.png
Okay... now you have to options:
*Yes Publius thats what I meant. Or Logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments does not pertain to debate.
*No Publius that what I dont meant. Logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments does pertain to debate.
If the second is the case.... You have a problem.... you have to explain why "Logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments" is part of both, but meanwhile philosophy of science isnt. And not forget in a logical and deductiv (and falseable) way to explain (as you doing this, I hope you will understand why Popper is importent). See: Your argument falls and stands with the second axiom "Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate." What if I wrote:
"Philosophy of science does pertain to debate."? Ehm.... Can I write this?.... Yes I can (in a postivistic word, as you can write the opposite in a positivistic world.... Isnt that awesome :O ) so back.. Yes I can..... Why? As it (Philosophy of science) is a elment of any debate, tru the fact that is the foundation of an logical deductiv falseable argument.
Now back to your point:
Philosophy of science does pertain logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments. So your argument would be: Logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments does not pertain to debate.
http://s1.directupload.net/images/120828/2rgpkkah.png
As you can see.... It wasnt my argument. My argument is/and was the whole package with logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments etc...; without the full package we have just truethiness. And that is what I think you dont understand.... as you dont care, about what kind of argument, but I will say it isnt then a debate.... it is just brainfart-discussion also known as just talking.... if you love to talk... do it, but dont sell it as discussion or even discussion points.....
Most of all Im shocked that you - as constructivist - work with a "law" (or wanna be law "Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate." )..... totally shocked.... Than.... I think the positivisms... Has it part here? Or? As with Popper.... can you think by yourself.... and answer me at least one question... see it as form as respect my friend..... Why had I wrote him to the package? What you think is the reason.. that I took him? Why my good friend?
-
Publius,
1. This is probably not the right thread to debate about how to debate. The topic is supposed to be 'slavery'. Let's get back to that.
2. I think it would really help your case if structure your thoughts (and sentences) in a way that more resembles how most people here do so. From what I've seen, it doesn't seem like a native language issue.
-
Publius,
1. This is probably not the right thread to debate about how to debate. The topic is supposed to be 'slavery'. Let's get back to that.
2. I think it would really help your case if structure your thoughts (and sentences) in a way that more resembles how most people here do so. From what I've seen, it doesn't seem like a native language issue.
To Point one: But I cant just come here and say "you are doing it wrong". What I can is show pepole if they make an error, and that they understand; what my point is. The last point, the understanding, is very important."
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56418#msg56418
As you say...It isnt the right place "to debate about how to debate". And I cant even say you doing it wrong or do it that way or this way. But I can say to people X or Y, that he/she has made a huge error. I can say guy X had on page 8 an error or you have done two bewteen 7-12. And I can try that you go back, and re-read some of our thoughts and arguments. How I can make this? Tru greed? :P
In the end, I hope one or two will understand, why so many people are writing that the topic was in the sink. And when one of the people which understand, is even one those which had made a of those brainfarts, even better. I could than say even "full win".
About two.... Like I always say, if there is any question, ask me. Dont just post something. Just ask, "Dude, Publius what you mean with x or y. etc..." and about: "if structure your thoughts (and sentences) in a way that more resembles how most people here do so." Can I ask... you mean people in this topic. like you? or Gotti? or Mithra? :P
(It is a joke, with some true in it. The question which on my site comes is, sould I structure my thoughts like Mithra inductiv, like he had done on some comments or deductiv which he had also done in some comments :P Or even deeper should I "structure my thoughts" in "laws" as it done in the postivism or should I say there isnt any real "knowledge" and "laws" etc.... , the constructivist way.)
Give me an example how I should do it. Generally I try to "structure my thoughts" :P But if there is any error, I will of course rework it. Like I always say...you can ask and point out wére I had made an error or had made a missunderstanding.
Yes, but nobody understands what the hell Publius is saying... :P
Publius seemed to be making a literal brain dump, and words where irritatingly in his way.
As you see. I had try to rework, some stuff see earlier post). If there is any question, just ask.
By the way great vid: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
Actually, this is a typical example to me of someone claiming a lot of pure (and falsifiable) nonsense.
A lot of emotional argumentation, lots of false conclusions.
[/quote]
As I see, you can find errors in an arguments in this topic (without saying that the opposit is pro-slavery, racist, or cut the opponent argument in half). Now use those skill which you had use oin Sam for this topic (It could you make even rich bitch :P ). But back to the topic. I really hope you can find errors in some arguments in this topic (to show me that people can learn).
I really hope, I really do, that if you go tru this topic, you will found it as I have: "A lot of emotional argumentation, lots of false conclusions." By the way if you like, I can show at least 4 really hard examples of comments which had an error (I speak of errors in the argumention, not about "U are doing it wrong"); but only if you like (maybe you still reading tru this topic and want the isk by yourself?) ?. See my point is to teach. I could just comment on this topic, how it is on a lower level.
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56416#msg56416
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55982#msg55982
There were a few more, Im to lazy to search right now. But I havent, I hope Gotti and the others will learn something out of it. So I hope, that you understand that I could like those people just trop a comment like: "Omg IGS discussion 2.0." and go away. But as I explain in my Gotti example. It wouldnt work, nobody would learn a thing.
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56418#msg56418
"I had made an error; which I had made on a discussion earlier with Gotti (that one about exports etc); I have just explain my stuff (not giving a benefit for learning)... and he had clearly not care, so that I ended the discussion with an poor joke. He had learned nothing and my comments where therefore nothing of value.
If I come here. And say, "come on dudes you can do this... so lets look at comment x or y of this person and tell me what he had done wrong?".... is a way in which I try to get away from the point as you discribe (sterotype, IGS discussions). We get to an new/next level."
Publius,
The topic is supposed to be 'slavery'. Let's get back to that.
I agree and Chell Charon had made a great comment lets talk with him.
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56410#msg56410
-
@Publius:
Why is it true that:
[...] Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate. (Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.)
It's quite simple:
Philosophy of science pertains to science.
Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate.
Popperian falsificationism is a theroy of philosophy of science.
Positivism is a stance within philosophy of science.
We do debate here.
-therefore-
Neither Popperian falsificationsim nor positivism pertain to what we are doing here: debating.
qed.
As I see ...My example was to hard :(... So lets go tru Mithras post again. First we shorten it.... Does he need: "Philosophy of science pertains to science" to make his argumnent? No... Why? Because it can stand alone without it.
His syllogism is:
* Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate. (Mayor Premise)
* Popperian falsificationism is a theroy of philosophy of science. Positivism is a stance within philosophy of science. thats makes both part of Philosophy of science. (Minor Premise)
-therefore-
Popperian falsificationism and Positivism does not pertain to debate.(Conclusion)
As I say, my post before. First. He has tho explain why is axoim/law is true. As I had show I can say the opposite. And he had an internal error by useing a law/axoim, this is clearly postivistic my contructivistic friend. As constructivist I wouldnt formulate a law or search after ones (because they cant be discovered from the world, a world without welt sehen/"world seeing"). So.... Afther using a axiom/law/mayor premise in his argument against postivism; makes me a little tickling again :P
As I already said.... When he startd to try to explain to me: Why his mayor premise is true, he will most likely use Popper (this overhaulted naive guy :P ).
If there is any questions people, just ask.
I don't care much about authority for example, and my claim is that you can play this game perfectly without reading much PF. In fact, it is my claim that the majority of the players (90%+) read less than 1% of the available prime fiction and they have no problem at all playing. The content of the debate your example is largely meaningless to me as a result.
See would be that a deductiv reasoning or inductiv reasoning? For me it look like a inductive probability.... but.... what would you say? :P And as I said "Morwen discussion", it was an example. Now we have another example, or?
Would You say it was inductiv reasoning or deductiv reasoning?
About "structure your thoughts"
What would a you like?....
So form this two: logical or illogical?
Answer: logical
deductiv or inductiv?
Anwser: Inductiv.
postivistic or constructivistic?
Answer: Postivistic (like I already said... It helps also with the culturell relativism debate and/or we can make statements about the world around us.).
Thats is what I have try..... I write "try", because I know there can be a missunderstanding. So If there is any question or error, post it. Like Stitcher and me had a missunderstanding. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1072548#post1072548 But after some post we fix it. So just ask.
About "Chell Charon". Sorry .... I will come to you after my Vacation, but I will hopefull them come up with something good ;)
-
Now, Publius, let me be german battleship clear about this: This isn't the place for your 'brainfarts'. If you want to debate Popper and Positivism and how people debate in here (and for God's sake if Philosophy of science pertains to debating or no) then open another thread, really. Nor is it the place to get into a online-forum-olecture on philosophy of science. (And I think I'll flag this one with a petition to get that stuff into it's own thread as it's all off topic in here.)
Quite frankly, nobody cares in here for your lengthy posts on popperianism and you got a lot of fallacies in your arguments, too many to point them out especially as all of them have nothing to do with the debate on slavery here.
Also, I don't need to get back to Popper at all to uphold any of my premises: It's per definitionem that philosophy of science is about science and not debate, and that the field pertaining to debate is argumentation theory. Both use logics, but that doesn't mean that logics is part of philosophy of science. Logics is a field independent of philosophy of science. Philosophy of science is (among other things) about how logics is applied to the process of science, argumentation theory is (again, among other things) about how logics is applied to debate.
Oh, also, I never said I'm a constructivist. I'm neither a positivist, though.
After having said this, again, this isn't the place for this kind of debate, though.
-
Holy shit, Publius.
-
I TL:DR'd this entire thread, did I miss anything good?
If someone could give me a TL:DR, that would be nice :P
-
There you go, Kala:
This is surreal.
Yeah, I'm confused, too.
So, general question, in the interests of understanding:
Some people seem to have a deep-seated need for the Caldari to be greedy space nazis, while others seem to want them to be a Randian meritocratic paradise. In much similar vein, it seems to me this debate is about some people wanting the Amarr to be pig-eyed, whip-wielding slavers, while others want them to be basically okay people with a strange quirk in their moral system that they're otherwise very nice about, now there's a good slave, have a cup of tea.
Oh, and then there's some people way out in left field discussing empiricism, Popper, strict logic, and proof structure, as if we're debating philosophy of science, instead of imaginary space people.
Would that be an accurate caricature of the debate, at this point?
-
debate on slavery.
Than please to it.... but like I said.... without that I get tickle form your comments.... and not forget you have always to argue why.... not just add a definition.... That isnt logical....it isnt even an argument. I thought you have study it?
-
I said my bit back on page 4:
There's a pretty basic disjunction between those who consider that slavery is, by its very nature, a fundamental abuse of human rights, and those who consider that slavery is an effective and desirable way of bringing the souls of the benighted to God, which is one of the highest human callings. For the former, it doesn't matter how "nicely" it may be implemented. For the latter, it's either worth some cost in suffering (Lallara uses the word "penance") to achieve such an elevated goal, or the "discipline" shaped by that suffering is part of the goal.
OOC, it's worth remembering that these are our agreed IC starting positions, and we're playing a game from there. The Amarrian starting point is going to be attacked IC by most characters who don't share its religious framework, and OOC by most players as essentially unsympathetic to modern sensibilities. Accept those game conditions and run with it: Amarrian player OOC victory conditions seem essentially about getting support and respect for taking a tricky starting point and playing it well, not to have people sympathising with the content of what you're playing.
ArtOfLight had a decent--though longer--post on page 10 (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55758#msg55758).
-
2)would it be wrong to make our characters make judgements because they might be influenced by our OOC feelings?
Here's my take on this:
Should our characters make judgements IC based on our personal feelings OOC? I don't think so. The entire point of role-playing is that the characters are not our OOC selves. I detest and abhor slavery with every fiber of my being -- but would it make sense for Evelyn have the same feelings?
So...that's my .02. Make of it what you will.
See you in the space-place!
-
2)would it be wrong to make our characters make judgements because they might be influenced by our OOC feelings?
Here's my take on this:
Should our characters make judgements IC based on our personal feelings OOC? I don't think so. The entire point of role-playing is that the characters are not our OOC selves. I detest and abhor slavery with every fiber of my being -- but would it make sense for Evelyn have the same feelings?
So...that's my .02. Make of it what you will.
See you in the space-place!
I think it is a subtle question where basing IC judgements on OOC feelings arbitrary is something to avoid, but at the same time it is not wrong either to use OOC feelings as a basis/example/guide of what can a character feel, since you cannot make any truer feeling than a RL feeling.
I mean, taking OOC feelings/ideas and copy pasting them on a character is clunky and bad form imo and only helps to make your character an unrealistic double of yourself (which is meh). But getting inspired by OOC various feelings, be it yours, or someone else's, and then adapting them to your character in a coherent way, can be interesting I guess, even if dangerous.
-
So, I've been beating this dead horse, but it just won't get up and run.
-
I think it is a subtle question where basing IC judgements on OOC feelings arbitrary is something to avoid, but at the same time it is not wrong either to use OOC feelings as a basis/example/guide of what can a character feel, since you cannot make any truer feeling than a RL feeling.
I mean, taking OOC feelings/ideas and copy pasting them on a character is clunky and bad form imo and only helps to make your character an unrealistic double of yourself (which is meh). But getting inspired by OOC various feelings, be it yours, or someone else's, and then adapting them to your character in a coherent way, can be interesting I guess, even if dangerous.
I'm not disputing that -- I think if we use OOC ideas to bolster our RP, it makes the character more realistic. But hating on the player because the character's views are objectionable to you on a real-life level...
Okay, let me illustrate what I mean (since I'm having a hard time with the words):
Several years ago, I was playing Neverwinter Nights on a multiplayer server -- my character, again, was a slaver (wonder what that says about me...) I was invited to another server where the rules said that such things were okay, but slave characters were considered equals., so I moved my character over there.
I wasn't there for ten minutes before the co-GM of the server literally sat her character in front of us and started repeated (not very subtle) attempts to convince us that slavery was wrong. There was no in-character reasoning behind it, no motivation -- the GM just though that slavery was evil, OOC, and tried everything she could to 'Mary-Sue' us into compliance.
I've used OOC inspiration to guide my characters' development before, and there's truly nothing wrong with that. Having your character be nasty to someone else's character solely because you dislike their character concept is just mean and petty.
-
I am not disputing what you said either. ^^
-
Let me add my drop of view on the subject, and please excuse me, if someone stated it already above.
From caldari point of view, slavery is bad only because of two reasons:
* first - slavery is against the law, and
* second - slavery is not efficient.
Caldari wasn't engaged in slavery affairs at all, and the law against slavery is, most probably, an inheritance of caldari-gallente federation. Since most caldari still consider slavery as not effective and too much hussle (imagine you have to make room for peoples, feed them, educate, teach them your religious ways, make them happy so they will work and not kill you with Khuumak, etc etc etc) compared to simply hired personnel, any propositions to remove ban of slavery hasn't been raised.
Generally Caldari society is based on honor and respect ideals. So, when a Caldari merchant is dealing with Amarrian merchant, he must respect laws and customs of Amarrian merchant. Since slavery for a Caldarian is just inefficient way, respectful Caldari won't notice it at all and won't be speaking or thinking bad things about slavery (it's not like it is mmhh ok, it's bad, it is more like mmmhhm it is unusual and not efficient), of course, until it is outside of the State. It is forbidden in the State, but not forbidden outside of the State, and Caldari must respect other peoples laws.
However, when someone brings slaves to Caldari space, he breaks Caldari law, and shows disrespect to Caldari. And then Caldari can show disrespect towards him, and yell at him and order him to GET THE <censored> OUT YOUR <censored> SLAVES! :twisted:
-
Yeah, I'm confused, too.
So, general question, in the interests of understanding:
Some people seem to have a deep-seated need for the Caldari to be greedy space nazis, while others seem to want them to be a Randian meritocratic paradise. In much similar vein, it seems to me this debate is about some people wanting the Amarr to be pig-eyed, whip-wielding slavers, while others want them to be basically okay people with a strange quirk in their moral system that they're otherwise very nice about, now there's a good slave, have a cup of tea.
In both cases the two viewpoints are not incompatible with each other.
It's quite possible for someone to think of themselves as a Randian hero while others see them as a greedy space nazi. Likewise, a slaver may well see themselves as upright and moral while opponents of slavery will see them as whip-wielding nutters.
And the scary thing is, all of those views could be valid.
For example...
Future Kryten: Kryten, we're epicures now. We travel through history enjoying the very best time has to offer.
Future Rimmer: Dolphin sweetmeats, roast suckling elephants, baby seal hearts stuffed with dove pate. Food fit for emperors!
Future Lister: We socialize with all of the greatest figures in history -- the Hapsburgs, the Borgias ...
Future Kryten: Why, only last week, Louis the Sixteenth threw a banquet especially in our honour.
Future Rimmer: The man is a complete delight -- urbane, witty, charming ...
Kryten: He was an idiotic despot who lived in the most obscene luxury while the working classes starved in abject poverty.
Future Rimmer: Well, we certainly didn't see any of that while we were there!
Future Kryten: And his wife's an absolute cutie.
Future Cat: I think they're our favourite hosts. If you don't count the Hitlers.
Kryten: The who?!
Future Rimmer: Providing you avoid talking politics, they're an absolute hoot.
Kryten: You're good friends with the Hitlers?!
Future Kryten: It's just a social thing. We don't talk about his work. We just have a few laughs, play canasta, and enjoy the odd game of mixed doubles with the Goerings.
Kryten: I don't believe what I'm hearing!
Future Rimmer: Look, you have to understand -- we travel back and forth throughout the whole of history, and naturally we want to sample the best of everything. It's just a bit unfortunate that the finest things tend to be in the possession of people who are judged to be a bit dodgy.