Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

BEOWULF - THE KARMA SUITSYA

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: BEOWULF - THE KARMA SUITSYA
Post by cthia   » Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:51 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11559
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

Redirected from . . .

Finally got me to expound? Because you didn't get it and you still don't. It was not a hidden clause of mine. It was common sense. Common sense that textev has supported. And it isn't so much what cthia (third person again because you are still not getting it) thinks, but obviously many citizens in the entire League, not just the Mandarins and officers. As supported by textev in the form of a snippet.

Your #1 is an outright untruth! A downright lie! . . .

tlb wrote:Where #1 is the following contention that we finally got you to state:
1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member.

Please try to finally understand this. You are drowning in the logic. Simple logic dictated by the laws of human nature, not the written legal laws of man. Crimes of passion are not crimes committed against any statute of laws. Crimes of passion are committed against people. When lovers stab lovers over dumping them and marrying their enemy, that isn't a crime against any law on the books. But books don't stab people 99 times long after they're dead. Scorned lovers do. That is as obvious in the books as the pages they're written on. If you cannot understand that, this conversation will always be over your head. That is why I used the analogy that Beowulf and the League were lovers. So that you can better understand the mechanics of the human element involved. I acknowledged that Beowulf may not have broken any legal laws on any books. But implied agreements made between people is two different balls of wax. Spitting in the palms and shaking hands isn't binding in court, but it sure is hell is binding between scorned people. Especially if one of those "people" is an abusive husband who is used to having everything his way. This is all common sense and I'm perplexed that I'm still having to argue it.

What I understand your obvious disconnect to be is that you agree the Mandarins would feel Beowulf's actions were treasonous. But you disagree on the reasons? You think that the League trumped up ill-founded charges of treason against Beowulf simply to get a declaration of war.

That's where you sadly go off the rails. First, of course they wanted a declaration of war. Of course they were using the charge of treason to get it! But if you don't think that they actually feel impugned in the manner of treason then you are delusional. They know it won't stand up in court. They know they don't have a record of spitting in palms and shaking hands. But deep down in their souls they certainly feel that Beowulf was a dirty bitch sleeping with the enemy behind their backs. Heck, Tsang is still having nightmares over the deceitful bitch's actions herself, unless UH killed her! You don't seem to understand the human element and human nature at all.

Scorned lovers seek justice of the heart, not of the courts.


This conversation should be held here in its proper thread and after I read UH. I understand that it is an exciting and entertaining thread. And it's obvious it is one of the main reasons you couldn't wait to get your hands on UH. Thanks for the compliment. My friends are excited about continuing this thread as well, but you'll have to wait until all of us catch up to UH. In the interim, use your time wisely - as Burdette should have done while his sword was being fetched* - and realize that the SLN's sensibilities were grossly impugned by Beowulf's actions.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: BEOWULF - THE KARMA SUITSYA
Post by tlb   » Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:22 am

tlb
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

cthia wrote:Yes, the first several pages of that thread and on up to half the thread was me arguing the simple fact that Beowulf's actions would be targeted as treasonous.

tlb wrote:Rather than a repetition of the entire discussion, the way I read the first half of that thread was as variations on the following paraphrased statements and responses:

Cthia writes "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason".
Someone else writes "What Beowulf did was legal and not treason at all".
Cthia writes "But Beowulf will have to consider the reaction of the Solarian League to its treason".
Someone else writes "Beowulf did what it needed to do and that was not treason".

About midway through the thread, we finally got you to expound and discovered that there was unspoken clause to your main statement. So it really went like this in your mind:

Cthia writes "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason (,because Beowuf had an obligation to the League that it was breaking)".

You just restated that hidden clause in the post above:
cthia wrote:Um, if you agree that the League would view Beowulf's actions as treasonous, then #1 is implied.


Where #1 is the following contention that we finally got you to state:
1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member.

In my opinion, A does not imply B; but if B were true, then it would justify A.

cthia wrote:Your post is really confusing. Your closing argument uses numbers (#1 and #2) then switches to letters (A and B) that either aren't related or the logic is orphaned. Additionally, you cannot argue "paraphrased statements," instead of the actual statements. Paraphrased statements are your interpretation of what was actually stated and meant.

--snip--

Please argue actual posts, not paraphrases. Paraphrases sre simply gossip. I have a difficult enough time hoping everyone will properly digest what's actually written.

Let's take this discussion to the ring where it belongs. LOL

cthia wrote:Finally got me to expound? Because you didn't get it and you still don't. It was not a hidden clause of mine. It was common sense. Common sense that textev has supported. And it isn't so much what cthia (third person again because you are still not getting it) thinks, but obviously many citizens in the entire League, not just the Mandarins and officers. As supported by textev in the form of a snippet.

Your #1 is an outright untruth! A downright lie! . . .

-- snip --
What I understand your obvious disconnect to be is that you agree the Mandarins would feel Beowulf's actions were treasonous. But you disagree on the reasons? You think that the League trumped up ill-founded charges of treason against Beowulf simply to get a declaration of war.

That's where you sadly go off the rails. First, of course they wanted a declaration of war. Of course they were using the charge of treason to get it! But if you don't think that they actually feel impugned in the manner of treason then you are delusional. They know it won't stand up in court. They know they don't have a record of spitting in palms and shaking hands.

Now you have me very confused: Is statement #1 implied by the statement "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" as you said in the other thread or is statement #1 a lie (meaning not representative of your thought) as you say now?

I used paraphrasing, because otherwise I would have to copy the first half of this thread. People are free to judge how close I came to catching the spirit of the discussion.

Let's discuss the logic where you say I am drowning.

You say (as I understand it) that "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" (the antecedent A) implies "Beowulf had an obligation to the League that it was breaking" (the consequent B).

I said that if "Beowulf had an obligation to the League that it was breaking" (B) were true, then "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" (A) would be valid; but there are various others statements whose truth could also lead to that result being valid. Among them is the statement that "The Mandarins want a declarations of war that Beowulf can block, unless it is treated as criminal". You agreed, but said it would not stand up in court; of course they can get it to stand up in court, they also control the court.

The point is that "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" can have multiple reasons to be true, so it does not imply any single one of them to be correct. This is not just logic, but also cause and effect: "The Solarian League considers Beowulf to have committed treason" is an observed effect; but the exact cause cannot be selected without additional information, if there are multiple causes that could be true. Perhaps multiple causes did result in the effect, but that would also need additional information to sort out.

As I see it, the Mandarins are solely concerned with their power which they have accrued slowly over the years through fees and corrupt deals with the interstellar corporations. Beowulf's independent line poses a threat to that power and that is powering the Mandarin's reaction. It is not that Beowulf is committing "treason" against the League, but that their actions threaten the power base of the bureaucracy.
Top
Re: BEOWULF - THE KARMA SUITSYA
Post by cthia   » Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:24 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11559
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

cthia wrote:Yes, the first several pages of that thread and on up to half the thread was me arguing the simple fact that Beowulf's actions would be targeted as treasonous.

tlb wrote:Rather than a repetition of the entire discussion, the way I read the first half of that thread was as variations on the following paraphrased statements and responses:

Cthia writes "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason".
Someone else writes "What Beowulf did was legal and not treason at all".
Cthia writes "But Beowulf will have to consider the reaction of the Solarian League to its treason".
Someone else writes "Beowulf did what it needed to do and that was not treason".

About midway through the thread, we finally got you to expound and discovered that there was unspoken clause to your main statement. So it really went like this in your mind:

Cthia writes "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason (,because Beowuf had an obligation to the League that it was breaking)".

You just restated that hidden clause in the post above:
cthia wrote:Um, if you agree that the League would view Beowulf's actions as treasonous, then #1 is implied.


Where #1 is the following contention that we finally got you to state:
1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member.

In my opinion, A does not imply B; but if B were true, then it would justify A.

cthia wrote:Your post is really confusing. Your closing argument uses numbers (#1 and #2) then switches to letters (A and B) that either aren't related or the logic is orphaned. Additionally, you cannot argue "paraphrased statements," instead of the actual statements. Paraphrased statements are your interpretation of what was actually stated and meant.

--snip--

Please argue actual posts, not paraphrases. Paraphrases sre simply gossip. I have a difficult enough time hoping everyone will properly digest what's actually written.

Let's take this discussion to the ring where it belongs. LOL

cthia wrote:Finally got me to expound? Because you didn't get it and you still don't. It was not a hidden clause of mine. It was common sense. Common sense that textev has supported. And it isn't so much what cthia (third person again because you are still not getting it) thinks, but obviously many citizens in the entire League, not just the Mandarins and officers. As supported by textev in the form of a snippet.

Your #1 is an outright untruth! A downright lie! . . .

-- snip --
What I understand your obvious disconnect to be is that you agree the Mandarins would feel Beowulf's actions were treasonous. But you disagree on the reasons? You think that the League trumped up ill-founded charges of treason against Beowulf simply to get a declaration of war.

That's where you sadly go off the rails. First, of course they wanted a declaration of war. Of course they were using the charge of treason to get it! But if you don't think that they actually feel impugned in the manner of treason then you are delusional. They know it won't stand up in court. They know they don't have a record of spitting in palms and shaking hands.

tlb wrote:Now you have me very confused: Is statement #1 implied by the statement "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" as you said in the other thread or is statement #1 a lie (meaning not representative of your thought) as you say now?

I used paraphrasing, because otherwise I would have to copy the first half of this thread. People are free to judge how close I came to catching the spirit of the discussion.

Let's discuss the logic where you say I am drowning.

You say (as I understand it) that "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" (the antecedent A) implies "Beowulf had an obligation to the League that it was breaking" (the consequent B).

I said that if "Beowulf had an obligation to the League that it was breaking" (B) were true, then "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" (A) would be valid; but there are various others statements whose truth could also lead to that result being valid. Among them is the statement that "The Mandarins want a declarations of war that Beowulf can block, unless it is treated as criminal". You agreed, but said it would not stand up in court; of course they can get it to stand up in court, they also control the court.

The point is that "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" can have multiple reasons to be true, so it does not imply any single one of them to be correct. This is not just logic, but also cause and effect: "The Solarian League considers Beowulf to have committed treason" is an observed effect; but the exact cause cannot be selected without additional information, if there are multiple causes that could be true. Perhaps multiple causes did result in the effect, but that would also need additional information to sort out.

As I see it, the Mandarins are solely concerned with their power which they have accrued slowly over the years through fees and corrupt deals with the interstellar corporations. Beowulf's independent line poses a threat to that power and that is powering the Mandarin's reaction. It is not that Beowulf is committing "treason" against the League, but that their actions threaten the power base of the bureaucracy.

You are confused because you have yet to grasp my posts. And now you are trying to translate something you fail to understand in the first place, further confusing you.

It is an outright lie that I said Beowulf is guilty of actual treason as you erroneously said I stated here . . .

tlb wrote:Where #1 is the following contention that we finally got you to state:
1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member

It is bad form to argue paraphrased statements of someone. Paraphrases are dangerous, prone to error of translation and subject to your understanding in the first place. Don't do it. Use actual quotes so that you won't misconstrue what the poster said. I shouldn't have to say "WTF, I didn't say that!"

As witnessed by the above case in point. If I can't trust you to properly digest and translate John Harington's quote, I shouldn't have to trust you to properly digest and translate mine. Use actual quotes please. No less of a consideration than I would require of myself.

You are sadly still struggling with the fact that the SLN truly feels impugned by Beowulf's actions and feel those actions were treasonous, regardless of whether they broke any statutes on the book. If the SLN was the USN and Beowulf was an American ally (say England) who did the same shit that Beowulf did under the exact same circumstances, YOU YOURSELF would be screaming bloody murder of treason against an implied relationship during a state of war, de facto or otherwise. :roll:

Crimes of passion come down to the spirit of relationships and agreements, not the letter of. Especially when there's an 800# bully with a copy of the agreement.

Perhaps England could have abstained from the fight as a conscientious objector if they were in bed with the enemy, but to assist the enemy - especially in all the ways that Beowulf assisted the Manties - is bullshit! And if you don't think every single officer and US citizen (even you) wouldn't think so regardless of the law, is stinkier bullshit! Especially since the USN and the US would likewise be in a fight for its life!

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: BEOWULF - THE KARMA SUITSYA
Post by tlb   » Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:19 am

tlb
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

tlb wrote:As I see it, the Mandarins are solely concerned with their power which they have accrued slowly over the years through fees and corrupt deals with the interstellar corporations. Beowulf's independent line poses a threat to that power and that is powering the Mandarin's reaction. It is not that Beowulf is committing "treason" against the League, but that their actions threaten the power base of the bureaucracy.

cthia wrote:You are confused because you have yet to grasp my posts. And now you are trying to translate something you fail to understand in the first place, further confusing you.

It is an outright lie that I said Beowulf is guilty of actual treason as you erroneously said I stated here . . .

tlb wrote:Where #1 is the following contention that we finally got you to state:
1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member

It is bad form to argue paraphrased statements of someone. Paraphrases are dangerous, prone to error of translation and subject to your understanding in the first place. Don't do it. Use actual quotes so that you won't misconstrue what the poster said. I shouldn't have to say "WTF, I didn't say that!"

As witnessed by the above case in point. If I can't trust you to properly digest and translate John Harington's quote, I shouldn't have to trust you to properly digest and translate mine. Use actual quotes please. No less of a consideration than I would require of myself.

You are sadly still struggling with the fact that the SLN truly feels impugned by Beowulf's actions and feel those actions were treasonous, regardless of whether they broke any statutes on the book.

I have not said anything about Harrington's quote.

So you want actual quotes.
On page 45 of this thread:
cthia wrote:Hell, I even began talking in the third person. No one could understand that the League, Mandarins and SL citizens would be passionate about Beowulf's implied responsibilities to its founding.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9380&start=440

On page 46 of this thread:
cthia wrote:Thank you tlb. You've come a long way. Though I fear the ceramecrete still hasn't quite set up. I'll accept your explanation that it is a "theory" of "implied responsibilities." Though I consider it more an obvious fact. And I'd much prefer the more descriptive longhand version to dissuade misunderstanding. . .

It is a theory of implied responsibilities on Mandarin/SLN/certain SL citizen sensibilities as felt by them. I'm not sure it is quite clear that the charge of treason is what is felt by the above participants. It is obvious to me and I chose to share it. And yes, I think the Mandarins may have a point - regardless of how criminal they are.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9380&start=450

On page 449 of the other thread:
cthia wrote:Um, if you agree that the League would view Beowulf's actions as treasonous, then #1 is implied. . .

1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member.


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5723&start=4480
Top
Re: BEOWULF - THE KARMA SUITSYA
Post by cthia   » Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:04 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11559
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

Tlb, please read it slowly. Pay special attention to the word . . .

im·plied

[imˈplīd]
ADJECTIVE
1. suggested but not directly expressed; implicit.
2. "she was aware of his implied criticism"


Suggested and not directly expressed means it isn't written anywhere in stone or in ink that can be placed on exhibit. It is an implied agreement between people. The SL didn't get it written on paper as most judges in a court of law would advise you to do next time. Over time the SL wouldn't have thought it necessary to worry about the letter of the law because they were the law. But there is no way in hell the SLN thought Beowulf would ever help sabotage their operations, or that the SLN would believe that Beowulf wouldn't know that it believed it can count on them during any confrontation with an enemy.

These are truths written in arrogance in the minds and hearts of the SL citizens.

But yes! I do agree that the SL has a point that that implied relationship - which is not legally treason - has been transgressed. My sister, who is a lawyer, informed me long ago during this thread that even implied relationships can be sustained without poof if it is obvious what was expected.

I refer you back to this post . . .

Crimes of passion are not transgressions made against the law.
Crimes of passion are transgressions made against people.


These are truths written in blood in the minds and hearts of every human. HUMAN NATURE.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: BEOWULF - THE KARMA SUITSYA
Post by cthia   » Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:21 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11559
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

I should also state that regardless of what UH holds, it will not change my mind that Beowulf has ordered up a big fat bowl of bad karma. Regardless of whether it was actually delivered in UH. Regardless of what happened in UH, Beowulf has it coming. That's what the Harrington Doctrine was trying to avoid. The Harrington Doctrine details the dangers of karma slowly festering and growing big and nasty and ready enough to stomp a mud hole in some targeted upturned asses. IOW, Beowulf's karma may be decades delayed.

The Harrington Doctrine is simply a political brief on karma.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: BEOWULF - THE KARMA SUITSYA
Post by tlb   » Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:50 pm

tlb
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

You are free to believe that; there is nothing more to say.
Top
Re: BEOWULF - THE KARMA SUITSYA
Post by ldwechsler   » Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:49 pm

ldwechsler
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1235
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 11:15 am

tlb wrote:You are free to believe that; there is nothing more to say.



There was no betrayal by Beowulf. The betrayal was by the Mandarins. This is typical of the basic struggle of the elites versus the people.

The elites never care much about the people. The League is more like the EU than the UN. Bureaucrats really run a lot of things and do what they want. Naval people get killed and the only thing worried about is winning the public relations.
Top
Re: BEOWULF - THE KARMA SUITSYA
Post by cthia   » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:21 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11559
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

ldwechsler wrote:
tlb wrote:You are free to believe that; there is nothing more to say.



There was no betrayal by Beowulf. The betrayal was by the Mandarins. This is typical of the basic struggle of the elites versus the people.

The elites never care much about the people. The League is more like the EU than the UN. Bureaucrats really run a lot of things and do what they want. Naval people get killed and the only thing worried about is winning the public relations.

There was no undisputed legal betrayal, but there certainly was a personal betrayal. It was an intimate, passionate personal betrayal, which are oftentimes and in many ways the most deadly.

If a woman dumps her lover and she is discovered to have been assisting and sleeping with the man's worst enemy all along—as Beowulf was discovered, indeed as Beowulf openly flaunted—dumping an abusive lover and sleeping with his enemy is no crime. But the effect is akin to removing all of the control rods from the nuclear reactor that is always raging at the heart of the arrogant abusive gorilla. It is legally wrong for the gorilla to kill. It is wrong for an impugned worker to enter his place of employment and kill people, but dead right or dead wrong, those workers are sadly still dead.

Although sleeping with a lover's enemy is no actual crime, psychologically it could be considered a crime against nature. There is at least one existing crime against nature that can be found on the books. Albeit, an abusive, scorned, arrogant lover won't give a-rats-ass whether it is on the books or not.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: BEOWULF - THE KARMA SUITSYA
Post by ldwechsler   » Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:30 am

ldwechsler
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1235
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 11:15 am

cthia wrote:
tlb wrote:You are free to believe that; there is nothing more to say.



There was no betrayal by Beowulf. The betrayal was by the Mandarins. This is typical of the basic struggle of the elites versus the people.

The elites never care much about the people. The League is more like the EU than the UN. Bureaucrats really run a lot of things and do what they want. Naval people get killed and the only thing worried about is winning the public relations.

There was no undisputed legal betrayal, but there certainly was a personal betrayal. It was an intimate, passionate personal betrayal, which are oftentimes and in many ways the most deadly.

If a woman dumps her lover and she is discovered to have been assisting and sleeping with the man's worst enemy all along—as Beowulf was discovered, indeed as Beowulf openly flaunted—dumping an abusive lover and sleeping with his enemy is no crime. But the effect is akin to removing all of the control rods from the nuclear reactor that is always raging at the heart of the arrogant abusive gorilla. It is legally wrong for the gorilla to kill. It is wrong for an impugned worker to enter his place of employment and kill people, but dead right or dead wrong, those workers are sadly still dead.

Although sleeping with a lover's enemy is no actual crime, psychologically it could be considered a crime against nature. There is at least one existing crime against nature that can be found on the books. Albeit, an abusive, scorned, arrogant lover won't give a-rats-ass whether it is on the books or not.[/quote]

What a horrible pseudo-example!

Beowulf didn't just cheat on the League. The League had been cheating on Beowulf for hundreds of years. It's more like a wife finds out her husband not only is cheating on her and has for a really long time but actually owns a brothel!

The Mandarins were constantly violating the League constitution. This reminds me of the "Holy Oath to Adolph Hitler" taken by top Nazis and German leaders. Many of them felt obliged to follow that even when it led to genocide and some refused to deal with the terms of surrender even after Hitler was dead.

In the US and also some other nations, soldiers pledge to obey LEGAL orders. The President, for example, could not send troops into New York with orders to kill everyone in sight.

If the United Nations decided it wanted to kill a country (there are those working to delegitimize Israel now) and ordered the US to send troops, would be betraying who we are as a nation by refusing to partake in genocide?

The whole process in the League has been bastardized for a very long time. In most ways it does not affect MEMBER planets. But it has caused misery for many billions of people.

Further, holding back that fleet not only saved thousands of sailors but had no real outcome on the battle.
Top

Return to Honorverse