Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lyn Farel]

I don't understand. I read it as it is.

Would you do all of these things RL just like that ?

[Ciarente]

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.

[Casiella]

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.

[Lyn Farel]

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.

[Casiella]

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"?

[Jev North]

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.

[ArtOfLight]

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 Farel]

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 ?

[Casiella]

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 ), 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. )

[ArtOfLight]

Bingo Casiella! That's precisely what I was trying to articulate, thank you.

[Ulphus]

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?

[lallara zhuul]

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...

[Casiella]

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.

[lallara zhuul]

And you want to believe that Amarrians are fundamentally evil.

[Ciarente]

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.