Alaroma wrote:Bortslovakia wrote:Honestly most people in the modern day probably agree with this sentiment to some extent. Though the various interventions of the late 20th, and 21st century have undoubtedly left a bad taste in the mouths of some, it's common sense that a state acting outside the reasonable expectations of the international community is not inherently protected by the concept of sovereignty. The issue here is that there is no international community to regulate the situation via treaties and accepted decorum.
Pat most certainly agrees with the stance Viktor's posited, but he's also afraid of the Imperium using injustice as a blank check to act as it pleases. There aren't many states willing and able to step up and say "You're right, but you can't do it this way" to Viktor right now. In fact, it's probably just Hibernia. I'm still not sure what I intend to actually do, but the situation is a zero sum gain, so nothing isn't a viable option. Plzen and I like to throw shade each others way a lot, but we both agree on the power of precedent.
Well it’s all about what precedent, isn’t it? If she gets away with this, and someday later an author looks at a particular minority group it doesn’t like in full view of other authors and nations, and decides “You know what? Genocide is badass.” And starts slaughtering innocents. So ultimately the case is “what is the worse precedent?”
Lesser of two evils is an argument made by people either A. Too lazy to work out a proper solution, or B. Pulling for one side already.
Both set absolutely horrific precedents. The oppression of individual liberties is not a sovereign right, nor is casus belli determined by how morally justified you feel when you give the marching orders. The Imperium may have good intentions, but without something stipulating the bounds of those intentions, nothing's stopping them from becoming progressively more liberal in their interpretation of when there is a reasonable justification to intervene in the politics of others.
G-Tech Corporation wrote:Bortslovakia wrote:we both agree on the power of precedent.
Precedent: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Edit: It is pretty amusing to me, really, since I had intended for Viktor to be a villain via pragmatism. But my immediate neighbors have all apparently decided to be even more villainous and even less pragmatic, which leaves the Imperium looking good in comparison.
Stories are made better by a sympathetic victim who has, you know, logical reasons for doing what they're doing. It's fun writing out Pat's thoughts on the Imperium because he knows they're a threat, and has blatant proof of Viktor's willingness to meddle in the spheres and affairs of others, often with military force. But by that same extension, he likes Viktor. He's a bit full of himself, but their correspondences have been amicable, and the Imperium has shown a willingness to cooperate with Hibernia in stopping the nascent pirate cabals of the Atlantic coastline. Having a villainous character just for the sake of being evil is perfectly fine if written well, but I think most people who've tried that have fit into the warlord mentality we discussed earlier.
Khasinkonia wrote:Unfortunately, it looks like I won't be able to join this rp. Thanks for the help y'all. Best wishes and luck.
If you change you're mind, you're always welcome back!
... Seriously Ireland could really use an actual doctor
