Rystil Arden
First Post
"If I recall correctly, you said:
'Hah, peace? If you are well-off, and in charge, sure -- peace sounds like a great deal...Hah. That's the sort of talk you get from comfortable folk, in comfortable surroundings, speaking in front of a warm fire'
and this was in response to my toast of peace. This is a clear indication that you believe people who talk of peace to be soft, living cushy comfortable lives, and yet I, as well as my people, yearn for peace one day.
Then you said: 'If change, any change, brings with it the promise of real reform, peace is another word for 'status quo' which, in this context, is another way to uphold the great unfairness we see around us.'
These are clearly words that support an anarchic rebellion.
As for your example:
'For example, you village is surrounded by enemy hordes, who are incapable of showing mercy or being effected by rational debate (for example, a mass of undead skeletons). Working towards "peace" in this case might in fact result in more dead. Where on the other hand, if the entire village works together to be an effective fighting force, they may defeat the attackers and (some) will survive.'
In this case, the true path to peace is to take arms and defeat the attackers--and there is no contradiction in such action. Allowing an army full of negative energy and hatred for life to take control is not peace, only the false peace instilled by the chill quiet of death. Any person who would swear a vow of peace, unwilling to fight for the cause of peace when oppressive tyrants would destroy it, are not truly dedicated to peace for the defenseless folk, merely selfish beings who arrogantly believe that they can show an unattainable example and then suddenly everything will be all right."
"Even so, I accept your half-apology and offer my own if my opinions have offended you."
'Hah, peace? If you are well-off, and in charge, sure -- peace sounds like a great deal...Hah. That's the sort of talk you get from comfortable folk, in comfortable surroundings, speaking in front of a warm fire'
and this was in response to my toast of peace. This is a clear indication that you believe people who talk of peace to be soft, living cushy comfortable lives, and yet I, as well as my people, yearn for peace one day.
Then you said: 'If change, any change, brings with it the promise of real reform, peace is another word for 'status quo' which, in this context, is another way to uphold the great unfairness we see around us.'
These are clearly words that support an anarchic rebellion.
As for your example:
'For example, you village is surrounded by enemy hordes, who are incapable of showing mercy or being effected by rational debate (for example, a mass of undead skeletons). Working towards "peace" in this case might in fact result in more dead. Where on the other hand, if the entire village works together to be an effective fighting force, they may defeat the attackers and (some) will survive.'
In this case, the true path to peace is to take arms and defeat the attackers--and there is no contradiction in such action. Allowing an army full of negative energy and hatred for life to take control is not peace, only the false peace instilled by the chill quiet of death. Any person who would swear a vow of peace, unwilling to fight for the cause of peace when oppressive tyrants would destroy it, are not truly dedicated to peace for the defenseless folk, merely selfish beings who arrogantly believe that they can show an unattainable example and then suddenly everything will be all right."
"Even so, I accept your half-apology and offer my own if my opinions have offended you."