Policy towards Lady Deirdre Skye/Gaians

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
You don't think it's a basic human right to beleive what you like, no matter what the state thinks…

No, I don't. People are pressured into believing things no matter what the state says. Indeed, most people are taught their religion,a nd do not choose it.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
…without being arrested or subjected to 24 hour a day propaganda?

Unsubstantiated. There is no evidence to say that a "freedom loving" people are subjected to arrest of 24 hour propaganda. In fact, taking together, a Fundy governemnt with a peace and freedom loving nature, I see it simply as a normal country whereby the ruler is also the religious leader, with religious laws, and that is not democratic. All this policing, forcing to believe is not necessary. You can have a fundy government and still believe what you want, but schools will teach religious teachings, and citizens have to abide by religious laws. Indoctrinating to some, but no worse than the religious schools that were rife throughout the Earth. in the 20th century.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Something can violate human rights without being genocide.

Depends on what you're human rights are. Who are we to dictate our human rights to other factions? I was usuing genocide as an example that although we may disagree wityh what she has doing/is doing, she is not committing 'crimes against humanity', she is not mass murdering people.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And here I thought you were a democrat.

I am, but we should not force other factions to be democratic. We have democracy, and I am happy for that, but the Gaian system is none of our business.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
1) As I have already pointed out, it rests on the brainwashing of the population.

2) People have the right to make up their own minds about what they believe; they shouldn't have it shoved down their throats at the behest of the state.

I would like that, but I've never seen teachign religion as against human rights. It happened throughout the 'free world' in he late 20th century. What is brainwashing? I do not think a 'freedom loving people' would force them to believe, but merely teach them that religion is right. If this is brainwashing, so be it, but it is not harsh or violent. Who are we to control their education system?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I never stated anything of the sort. That was the argument I put forward against peace with Yang.

Sorry. I presumed you talking that she wouldn’t sign a treaty meant that you thought she would just go back on truces and attack us again. My bad.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
The issue of sustainability is also irrelevant to me in my disliking Deirdre and being somewhat irritated at the way people seem to forgive her crimes.

What crimes? So she teaches religion, and she rules according to a religion, without electing a leader. Yes we do not agree with that, but it’s none of our business how they run their country. They do not mass murder people, the only domestic reason I would consider enforcing our will might be justified.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
As Deirdre is not a military threat, the issue of her launching a surprise attack is basically irrelevant (although we should always keep watch in the Sea of Mnesimache and the Great Marine Rift inc ase she's sending ships at us). She is not Yang; she does not have an air force which could hit us at any time from across the ocean and cause great damage.

But having peace means we possibly get extra trade (with treaty) although that is not really needed. More importantly, we can be safe travelling the sea. There is no reason to continue the war, except for your belief that she is evil and must be stopped. The people do not feel that way, and thus the poll states we should go for peace, even if it means giving technology/ecs in exchange for it.

[Drogue]

Double post Sorry

[Drogue]

Originally posted by War of Art
GT, you really must hate Deirdre. What did she do to you?

Almost exactly my thoughts. I'm glad to see GT in the minority on this one.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I'm being asked why I don't like a leader who denies freedom of thought to an entire nation

Evidence please? You keep saying this, but as their profile says, they have a -2 Police due to being a "freedom loving people". I find it hard to believe just because they have a religious government they have no freedom.

Saying that is like saying that just because we have FM we are ruled by large corporations, and are killing Planet. Neither of which is true, just as easy to believe as Fundy has to mean reduction in freedom of thought. It could well mean that, but it doesn't have to, and in the situtation of a freedom loving people, I'd think it's more likely not to. But this point is mute now, the people have voted, we should go for peace.

[Jamski]

Well, maybe we don't get along with her so well, but this hatred and desire to destroy her and her faction is a little over the top, or?

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

No, I don't. People are pressured into believing things no matter what the state says. Indeed, most people are taught their religion,a nd do not choose it.

So ebcause you believe that we cannot be free of social indoctrination at some level, you think it's perfectly OK for the state (or anyone) to practise forcible indoctrination?

Unsubstantiated. There is no evidence to say that a "freedom loving" people are subjected to arrest of 24 hour propaganda.

When the current system of SE values conflicts with the faction profile, one should always assume that current SE values trump the profile. If Deirdre uses a Police State, her people aren't somehow more free than Yang's.

In fact, taking together, a Fundy governemnt with a peace and freedom loving nature, I see it simply as a normal country whereby the ruler is also the religious leader, with religious laws, and that is not democratic.

IOW, a religious theocracy, which directly contradicts the 'freedom loving nature' bit. Thocracies cannot co-exist with freedom. Nor, for that matter, can laws based on religion.

All this policing, forcing to believe is not necessary. You can have a fundy government and still believe what you want,

You can ahve a government of fundamentalists while still ahving freedom, but once the government's policy becomes fundamentalist, you cannot continue to beleive what you want, because fundamentalism as policy is about not lettign you believe what you want.

but schools will teach religious teachings, and citizens have to abide by religious laws.

I'm amazed that you can so thoroughly prove my poitn while still claiming that fundy and freedom can co-exist. Forcing people to abide by religious laws destroys freedom.

Indoctrinating to some, but no worse than the religious schools that were rife throughout the Earth. in the 20th century.

You say that as though such schools were a good thing. Do you ahve any idea how much suffering was caused by the products of, for example, the Pakistani madrasses?

Depends on what you're human rights are. Who are we to dictate our human rights to other factions? I was usuing genocide as an example that although we may disagree wityh what she has doing/is doing, she is not committing 'crimes against humanity', she is not mass murdering people.

I take it, then that you disagree with the Universal Declaration of Rights enrished within our own UN Charter, which has been ratified by all factions?

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I am, but we should not force other factions to be democratic. We have democracy, and I am happy for that, but the Gaian system is none of our business.

There is something of a difference between saying that something is 'none of our business' (which is generally a good diea, as long as it's applied consistently) and actually being complicit in the continuation of that system.

I would like that, but I've never seen teachign religion as against human rights.

There's a difference between teaching a religion and lwtting people make up their own minds (e.g. telling students what the tenets of a religion are), and enforcing that teaching on them.

It happened throughout the 'free world' in he late 20th century.

If you think that's going to work on me, you are sadly mistaken. you know (or shoudl know) damn well that simply because something happene don earth does not make it right. You, after all,a re th eone who is always talking about not repeating the mistakes of Earth.

I do not think a 'freedom loving people' would force them to believe, but merely teach them that religion is right.

The fact that the people are freedom loving has no bearing on how they are treated. Would you consider them more free than the Hive population if they were suddenly conquered by Yang?

If this is brainwashing, so be it, but it is not harsh or violent.

If I find a non-violent way to plug you into an MMI device, wipe your memories, and then make you think that yu are a Nazi, have I committed a crime, given that your brainwahsing wasn't harsh or violent?

[quote]Who are we to control their education system?/quote]

I don't presume to tell them what to teach their children, I merely believ ehtat they are wrong to teach what they do, and are wrong in how they do it.

What crimes? So she teaches religion, and she rules according to a religion, without electing a leader. Yes we do not agree with that, but it’s none of our business how they run their country. They do not mass murder people, the only domestic reason I would consider enforcing our will might be justified.

The SLORC in Burma didn't commit mass murder either (well, they did on one occasion, but they didn't do it to a huge extent). Was the West right to trade with them and shore them up with revenue?

But having peace means we possibly get extra trade (with treaty) although that is not really needed. More importantly, we can be safe travelling the sea. There is no reason to continue the war, except for your belief that she is evil and must be stopped. The people do not feel that way, and thus the poll states we should go for peace, even if it means giving technology/ecs in exchange for it.

And that brings me to my original beef: we value peace with Deirdre so much that we're willing to help shore up her dictatorship in order to get it. If you knowlingly aid such people, you become complicit in what they do.

Evidence please? You keep saying this, but as their profile says, they have a -2 Police due to being a "freedom loving people". I find it hard to believe just because they have a religious government they have no freedom.

Why is this so hard to believe? The existence of a religious government requires the denial of such freedoms; why do you think the Catholic Church went to such lengths to suppress science and independant discource?

Saying that is like saying that just because we have FM we are ruled by large corporations, and are killing Planet. Neither of which is true, just as easy to believe as Fundy has to mean reduction in freedom of thought.

FM does not require eithe rof those things in order to function. Fundy does require elimination of freedom of thought in order to function. The two are not remotely comparable.

It could well mean that, but it doesn't have to, and in the situtation of a freedom loving people, I'd think it's more likely not to.

Why do you think the political beliefs of the people mean a thing when the government is (as you yourself admitted) unelected and undemocratic? The fact that they love their freedom does not mean it won't be taken from them. Most people o Earth loved theirm freedom (when they ahd it; if they never had it, they loved the idea of it). This didn't prevent them from losing it.

Well, maybe we don't get along with her so well, but this hatred and desire to destroy her and her faction is a little over the top, or?

When did I demand that her faction be destroyed? There's a difference between not wanting a close relationship with someone and wanting them destroyed.

[Jamski]

Well, you don't want to stop warfare against them, and you don't want us to lose (obviously), so you must want the Gaians to be destroyed. or reduced to our submissive slaves. I can't think of another option that makes sense.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

I want us to refuse to co-operate with them in any whatsoever until they implement democracy. Paying them for peace would be effectively a gift to them, as we don't need to make peace and they have no right to make demands of us.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I want us to refuse to co-operate with them in any whatsoever until they implement democracy.

"We have ways of making you free!" said Bush to Saddam one morning

-Jam

[Cedayon]

Hmm, the game doesn't really give any details, but I imagine Deidre's fundy being a fairly paganistic affair centered around the worship of and reliance on Planet (or nature in general), and getting laid a lot. The latter, with the accompanying "propoganda", would probably be fairly effective in distracting the vast majority of those that would be discontent with her regime.

The remaining discontents, however, would be out of luck if they wanted things run differently.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Cedayon
I imagine Deidre's fundy being a fairly paganistic affair centered around... [blah] ...getting laid a lot.
The remaining discontents, however...

What remaining discontents ?

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Heh... sounds like the sort of thing Drogue might go in for, actually.

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by War of Art
What remaining discontents ?

There are still a few of us silly people with morals, though we're not at all surprised to be looked over

...

and being at war with Deidre and not seeking peace doesn't necessarily mean we intend to destroy or force her into submission... it could just mean that we know any peace between us would be rather fleeting and thus there are better places to put resources than placating her.

I'd take an unconditional peace, though, so long as we remained ready for a sneak attack (I'm not accusing Deidre of being craven or anything, it's just that the AI in general will attack with very little warning).