Who is most evil?

EEEEEVHAL

  • Kitties

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • Black Lance

    Votes: 28 52.8%
  • Retros

    Votes: 7 13.2%
  • Pirates

    Votes: 3 5.7%
  • Bugs

    Votes: 10 18.9%

  • Total voters
    53
Originally posted by Frosty

...nor could you prove that all fascists are, by definition, evil....

I agree that BL aren't really fascist, but the way they operate are pretty dang close. As far as the Nazi government is concerned, gassing, incinerating, grotesque genetic experiments,and torture with the intent of personal pleasure on an innocent people is very disturbingly evil in my book. Any fascists I've read about besides the Nazis were all drunk with power and felt like they could do any damn thing they wanted to. I've seen the literature, so no one could persuade me otherwise.
 
I too am always on the "dark side," when it comes to these things. To stay on topic, I always choose to defect at the very last moment because I believe in Confed's fight. I also agree with Tolwyn on some things too.

Thus, as I have said before, get the "tyrant Blair," ending in WC4 almost every time. I actually have to try to get the "good," ending!

I am not bloodthirsty, either (not like Hawk). I simply tend to root for the side which fights for control, law, order, strength, virtue, superiority, purification and honor. I dislike being on any side which fights for things like insubordination, disloyalty, defiance and irresponsibility.

Here's some food for thought- would the Bugs have gotten very far if the Black Lance had succeeded...?

;)
 
Originally posted by Wulf
I agree that BL aren't really fascist, but the way they operate are pretty dang close.
No it isn't, not by any stretch of the imagination.
As far as the Nazi government is concerned, gassing, incinerating, grotesque genetic experiments,and torture with the intent of personal pleasure on an innocent people is very disturbingly evil in my book. Any fascists I've read about besides the Nazis were all drunk with power and felt like they could do any damn thing they wanted to. I've seen the literature, so no one could persuade me otherwise.
I think your problem stems from two flaws:
  • You lack any sort of fundamentally correct understanding of the term "fascist."
  • You're doing your thinking with your emotions and not your head.
Yes, post-hitler Nazi party activity was, by and large, evil by definition. However, you've done a piss-poor job of proving that *all* other fascist organizations are evil. "Drunk with power" says assmunch, not evil. Before you go making these massive and erronious generalizations, why don't you look up the definitions of the words you're using.
 
Fascism is strict military totalitarianism. In the beginning, it's not too bad, but then power gets to peoples' heads.

BTW...it's not necessary to accuse somebody of being an idiot right off and presenting an argument that way, because all your doing is trying to make me angry. I know plenty, and yes there's plenty more left to learn, but I know about fascism. However, since I'm just pointing out main ideas here to save time, someone always has to jump in and say 'well, you do a piss poor job of trying to prove something'. You know what I say? **** you because I'm not trying to prove anything! Doing so according to your standards, Frosty, would prompt me to write a novel about a subject, and I'm not going to do it. Pardon me for appearing vague about fascism, I didn't want to take forever explaining it because I assumed people already had a good idea about what it was. Then there is you, Frosty, who has to tear out a new asshole on someone for not writing a damned essay...which you damned near made me do right now!
 
Originally posted by Wulf
Fascism is strict military totalitarianism. In the beginning, it's not too bad, but then power gets to peoples' heads.
Verily dost thou reveal thine own error. Fascism and fascist governments are not inherantly evil, therefore we can assume that not all fascists are evil, nor should we expect them to be. The same goes for regimes. Does that make them nice people? No, but it does disprove your previous assumption.

Then there is you, Frosty, who has to tear out a new asshole on someone for not writing a damned essay...which you damned near made me do right now!
I only have a problem with people who go about spewing misinformation as if they were experts on the subject, speaking academic gospel. I do not care about the length of your post.

How long-winded you are has no bearing on the correctness of your statements.
 
Originally posted by Col.Dom
Here's some food for thought- would the Bugs have gotten very far if the Black Lance had succeeded...?
Yes, they would have. Since 90% of humanity are dead, the Black Lance would lose. Why? Because for them, even the loss of a single fighter would be disasterous. If you reduce the population by 90%, you reduce everything - production, resources, etc - by 90% or (I would assume) more, since you totally disrupt all economic systems and there are no resources to put things back on track. To make things worse, at the time when the Black Lance's ever-so-wonderful plan was put in motion, Confed's economy was already in tatters due to the war - and the Kilrathi had killed a lot less than the BL was about to.
Confed could afford to develop a whole range of new fighters. Confed could afford to build ten Vesuvius-class carriers, and start building ten Midway-class carriers, too. Why? Because Confed had an economy. The Black Lance would be stuck with Dragons, and with just the two - two - Vesuvius carriers, and a bunch of war-era ships which, as we know from the WCP manual, will be obsolete by '81.

Roughly, this is how things would have gone. The bugs jump into Kilrah. They encounter little or no resistence. The bugs proceed happily with their work among the Kilrathi (assuming, of course, that there's still Kilrathi left). No major BL forces intervene, because given their number of carriers, the presence of a Vesuvius-class (anything else isn't sufficient) in the vicinity would be too much to hope for. Sooner or later, they move into human territory. By now, presumably, the BL's pathetically-small forces have finally managed to respond in a more coordinated fashion, and maybe they even start pushing the bugs back towards Kilrah, just like the Midway did. However, because of the slower response time and the weakened economy, even if the BL force makes it into Kilrah (unlikely), they are too late to stop the rest of the bug forces from entering.

All this, however, is based on the assumption that the BL was able to succeed - which they weren't. Blair's not the only war hero in Confed, you know :). The WC4 losing track ending paints a grim picture, but not necessarily a BL victory - the sort of destruction intended for the Border Worlds would have soon caused mutinies to explode all throughout the Confed forces. Tolwyn and the BL would have ceased to exist long before they could succeed even in the Border Worlds.
 
This is craziness.

Yes, the project was bad, evil, wrong, whatever. But they weren't cartoonish supervillain evil. They had a plan -- they weren't going to kill the masses and then sit around sipping martinis and laughing about how great it is that they'd killed everyone and made life better.

The plan was to attack a number of Confed worlds with the bioweapon, and then to blame the Border Worlds -- *not* to wipe out the universe with it. The goal was a *war* to toughen the species, not an instant mass genocide. By knocking Confed down a rung, they could force a longer, more drawn out war with the Border Worlds -- and hopefully continue the type of military developments that only come with such a war.

It is always very attractive to say claim that evil men will fail regardless of how history goes -- we've seen 90-jillion "Hitler wins World War II but loses anyway!" stories in the course of recent history... but they are fiction. There is no concievable way to say with such certainty how history would have gone differently. To claim such things as you have below as the 'only' way history could occur differently is silly...
 
Not Originally Posted By Frosty
Merrick-Webster Online
Main Entry: evil
Pronunciation: 'E-v&l, British often and US also 'E-(")vil
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil
Date: before 12th century
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation>
2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE <an evil odor> c : DISAGREEABLE <woke late and in an evil temper>
3 a : causing harm : [/u]PERNICIOUS[/u] <the evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY
- evil adverb, archaic
- evil·ly /-(l)E/ adverb
- evil·ness /-n&s/ noun [/b]

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized
 
But if saying that the Project would have failed no matter what happened is silly, then all these fantasies people spin about how some super stong Confed spearheaded by the Black Lance would have wiped the floor with the Bugs without even breaking a sweat are equally silly, no? Just like it's impossible to say definitely that the mass destruction and civil war that the Project planned would have have left us weaker when the Bugs came, it would be equally impossible to say that the Project would have put us in a stronger position, because these what what if scenarios can be spun either way. And without that, the main justification people use to support the Project falls down.

The simple fact is that we didn't choose the route the Project wanted us to take, kept our freedom and our democracy, met the invasion and crushed it, all for a fraction of the casualties that using the Gen-Select on *one* heavily populated World like Earth would have caused. That victory is the ultimate proof that the Project was wrong. We would have ended up murdering billions and shattering the lives of many more for no good reason at all. And that in my book, is evil.

Best, Raptor
 
Looking back, I must admit you're right, LOAF - I did post my views too firmly as 'this could only happen like this'. That having been said, you must admit that it was only in his jailcell that Tolwyn realised that he didn't need to 'separate the wheat from the chaff'. This implies - at least to me - that earlier, he had in fact intended to purge most or all of the human worlds using bioweapons. Even if he decided to only purge most of them (or to only purge them a few worlds at a time, since as you point out, he wanted a protracted war), I think the economic damage would have been significant in Confed's post-war situation. I mean, even prior to being exposed, Tolwyn was already hampering recovery by shoving more resources than necessary into the military (Vesuvius project in particular). We should assume that had he been successful, the result would have been even more resources into the military; no economic recovery, and on the contrary, plenty of economic downfalls due to the war.

And hey, if Seether isn't cartoonish-supervillain-evil, what is? :)

Finally, yes, it is very attractive to claim that evil always looses in the end. Yet in this case, we have plenty of evidence that it was at the least quite likely. Look at the number of defections that occured by the time Blair finally defected. If this is what happens on one carrier, we can assume similar things were happening on others. On capships where there is no defect option because there are no fighters, we can guess this would translate into mutinies. And then there's the BL, who would have provided a few defectors of its own ("And I couldn't go on!"). Would all this have been enough? Maybe not, but it certainly would have made things much more difficult for Tolwyn. Add to it the fact that the Landreich seemed to be on the verge of intervening - they were already lending fighters, and full-scale intervention would surely have been the next step (not much of a fleet, but the BW and the FRL combined start adding up to something). And the Kilrathi too, were being forced to defend themselves, at least - so maybe an alliance here is also not inconceivable. All this, in my opinion, leads logically to the assumption that the BL really didn't have much chance. Tolwyn was going for war far too early - there's a reason why Hitler didn't attack in 1934.
 
Originally posted by Raptor:
[T]hese . . . what if scenarios can be spun either way. And without that, the main justification people use to support the Project falls down.

I don’t see how that follows. Just because as a practical matter we can rarely if ever say for certain what the future holds doesn’t by itself undermine a philosophy of “ends justifying means”.

The simple fact is that we didn't choose the route the Project wanted us to take, kept our freedom and our democracy, met the invasion and crushed it, all for a fraction of the casualties that using the Gen-Select on *one* heavily populated World like Earth would have caused. That victory is the ultimate proof that the Project was wrong.

First, as far as we know, it’s early days yet in the war against the Nephilim. Who’s to say whether Confed will finally prevail, or what the costs of that victory will be? Your conclusion is premature.

Second, don’t you mean to say that victory is proof (so far!) that Tolywn was wrong (specifically in his assumptions/predictions about the future)? Otherwise, aren’t you using “ends” to judge “means”? I thought your “ultimate proof” the Project was wrong was that it was wrong per se, that is, on its own moral ground, and irrespective of whether it would ensure the survival of the human race.
 
But if saying that the Project would have failed no matter what happened is silly, then all these fantasies people spin about how some super stong Confed spearheaded by the Black Lance would have wiped the floor with the Bugs without even breaking a sweat are equally silly, no?

Oh, absolutely -- as I said, it's silly to say that something *would* have happened either way. In this case, I think the closest we could come to saying something like that the project was created with such a goal in mind. But to equate this with something automatically happening *is* silly -- the Behemoth being built didn't automatically mean that the Behemoth had ended the war and blown up KIlrah.

The simple fact is that we didn't choose the route the Project wanted us to take, kept our freedom and our democracy, met the invasion and crushed it, all for a fraction of the casualties that using the Gen-Select on *one* heavily populated World like Earth would have caused. That victory is the ultimate proof that the Project was wrong.

Well... the jury may be still out on whether or not the invasion has been shattered. :)

As for our democracy -- I'm curious to know why everyone brings this up when talking about the events of WCIV? Certainly it, again, seems attractice to think that an evil organization is trying to take out mom, pop, apple pie and the American way... but they were, in fact, *not*. Keeping our civilian government was important to Tolwyn (FC) -- he just wanted to place Confed in a horrible war that would have "strengthened" it. And he did so *because* of our the actions of our democracy -- their descisions (declaring martial law, funding black projects, initiating the GE project) allowed him to exist.

That having been said, you must admit that it was only in his jailcell that Tolwyn realised that he didn't need to 'separate the wheat from the chaff'. This implies - at least to me - that earlier, he had in fact intended to purge most or all of the human worlds using bioweapons. Even if he decided to only purge most of them (or to only purge them a few worlds at a time, since as you point out, he wanted a protracted war), I think the economic damage would have been significant in Confed's post-war situation. I mean, even prior to being exposed, Tolwyn was already hampering recovery by shoving more resources than necessary into the military (Vesuvius project in particular). We should assume that had he been successful, the result would have been even more resources into the military; no economic recovery, and on the contrary, plenty of economic downfalls due to the war.

That's a lot to discern from the short, vague 'thoughts' of someone whose sanity is even now being debated at these boards. :) Tolwyn's ultimate goal was certainly more 'enhanced' humans -- but his plan was that we *fight* to 'separate the wheat from the chaff', just like the Kilrathi did.

The economy one is a non-issue, too -- Tolwyn wanted us to be more like the Kilrathi... *constantly* fighting. When the war was over, he'd probably have engineered a battle against the Firekkans or the Varni or somesuch race.

Finally, yes, it is very attractive to claim that evil always looses in the end. Yet in this case, we have plenty of evidence that it was at the least quite likely. Look at the number of defections that occured by the time Blair finally defected. If this is what happens on one carrier, we can assume similar things were happening on others.

Disagree -- Lexington was the project's "host" carrier, replaced by the Princeton. Defections were certainly more heavy onboard those two ships, which were at the front *performing* the project's black ops... although I'm sure that had an actual war broken out you'd see pilots from the Border Worlds defect back to their homeland...

On capships where there is no defect option because there are no fighters, we can guess this would translate into mutinies.

Guh? People on the Lexington (well, a *few* people -- there are thousands of people on a carrier, several pilots defected) defected because they knew something was wrong -- they'd been involved in grabbing the biochemist, they'd encountered project personell in person and so on... your average destroyer or what-not doesn't have this view of the situation.

And then there's the BL, who would have provided a few defectors of its own ("And I couldn't go on!"). Would all this have been enough? Maybe not, but it certainly would have made things much more difficult for Tolwyn.

I don't see where you're going -- there's defectors in *every* war... why does this somehow completely change the shape of this one?

Add to it the fact that the Landreich seemed to be on the verge of intervening - they were already lending fighters, and full-scale intervention would surely have been the next step (not much of a fleet, but the BW and the FRL combined start adding up to something).

I don't think that's the next step at all -- lots of countries have claimed solidarity with the US in this current war on... wherever it is we're at war on right now, but I don't think anybody expects that their next step will be "full scale intervention". It just doesn't make sense to automatically assume that all of these things *will* happen. Kruger provided replacement parts for the Intrepid -- that doesn't mean he's going to comit his entire fleets to defend someone elses nation.

And the Kilrathi too, were being forced to defend themselves, at least - so maybe an alliance here is also not inconceivable. All this, in my opinion, leads logically to the assumption that the BL really didn't have much chance. Tolwyn was going for war far too early - there's a reason why Hitler didn't attack in 1934.

The BL wouldn't have been a single organization, though -- they were trying to seed war *between* all these groups. Involving the Landreich and the Kilrathi, and weakning the ultra-powerful Confed with defectors... even if these things happened, they'd be a *help* to the project, because they'd draw out the war between Confed and the Border Worlds.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
That's a lot to discern from the short, vague 'thoughts' of someone whose sanity is even now being debated at these boards. Tolwyn's ultimate goal was certainly more 'enhanced' humans -- but his plan was that we *fight* to 'separate the wheat from the chaff', just like the Kilrathi did.
The economy one is a non-issue, too -- Tolwyn wanted us to be more like the Kilrathi... *constantly* fighting. When the war was over, he'd probably have engineered a battle against the Firekkans or the Varni or somesuch race.
All right, all right, I withdraw the 90% thing :). But here's an interesting thought - the Kilrathi Empire's (or at least, Jukaga's father's) main concern was that Confed was a much more, hmm, solid entity. I may be grasping at straws here, but would this not be a reference to Confed's economy being much stronger because it's not constantly on wartime footing (ie., the US before WWII)? Wasn't Jukaga's father convinced that if the first strike failed, Confed would eventually triumph because of being better able to withstand a prolonged war? One wonders then, how things would have gone had it been Confed that launched a surprise attack at the Kilrathi - or in this case, the Nephilem at a war-like Confed.

Guh? People on the Lexington (well, a *few* people -- there are thousands of people on a carrier, several pilots defected) defected because they knew something was wrong -- they'd been involved in grabbing the biochemist, they'd encountered project personell in person and so on... your average destroyer or what-not doesn't have this view of the situation.
For now. Once the war starts however, the BL would have become much more evident - as would the 'questionable' orders, and the feeling that something is not right.

I don't see where you're going -- there's defectors in *every* war... why does this somehow completely change the shape of this one?
Because this is a very special war - most Confed soldiers do not adhere to the Black Lance, and therefore do not share their beliefs. Yes, the atrocities supposedly commited by BW would go a long, long way to keep Confed soldiers loyal. But if Blair & co. had been willing to give the BWers the benefit of the doubt when they had themselves witnessed some of these 'atrocities', many people might find the bigger atrocities, such as bioweapons just as hard to swallow - if not more so, since everybody seems convinced that the BWers don't have the technology to match Confed.

Kruger provided replacement parts for the Intrepid -- that doesn't mean he's going to comit his entire fleets to defend someone elses nation.
If it was anybody else, I'd agree. But this is Kruger, whose view of Confed isn't very positive in the best of situations. If Confed took up a full-scale war against BW - people with whom they had been friendly - don't you think that Kruger, whose Landreich is generally not on friendly terms with Confed, might see it in his own interest to intervene?

The BL wouldn't have been a single organization, though -- they were trying to seed war *between* all these groups. Involving the Landreich and the Kilrathi, and weakning the ultra-powerful Confed with defectors... even if these things happened, they'd be a *help* to the project, because they'd draw out the war between Confed and the Border Worlds.
Except that the BL seemed to be failing on those other fronts - look how quickly the BW found itself exchanging notes with Melek (who had every reason to disbelieve the BW). If it was this easy for Blair and Melek to catch on that they were being manoeuvred against each other, then clearly something is not working for the BL :).
 
All right, all right, I withdraw the 90% thing . But here's an interesting thought - the Kilrathi Empire's (or at least, Jukaga's father's) main concern was that Confed was a much more, hmm, solid entity. I may be grasping at straws here, but would this not be a reference to Confed's economy being much stronger because it's not constantly on wartime footing (ie., the US before WWII)? Wasn't Jukaga's father convinced that if the first strike failed, Confed would eventually triumph because of being better able to withstand a prolonged war? One wonders then, how things would have gone had it been Confed that launched a surprise attack at the Kilrathi - or in this case, the Nephilem at a war-like Confed.

I would more equate the situation to that of Russia in WW2 -- Vakka knew that Confed had a huge amount of colonized space, a larger number of citizens and more access to resources... and that their *fault* was that they weren't dedicating this to war. His worry was that if the Empire couldn't crush Confed in a single blow, they could bring to bear this industrial potential and draw out to a long war...

Now, this fact was essentially right -- but consider the fact that regardless of Confed's ability to convert massive resources to war, the Kilrathi industrial might *did* end up dominating the Confederation in the end... we won the war for other reasons.

These reasons are what Tolwyn hopes to get out of a prolonged struggle for the Confederation -- in his view, military technology develops far more quickly in wartime, and politicians are far more willing to stand together to support the military that will be required for preventing the next threat.

For now. Once the war starts however, the BL would have become much more evident - as would the 'questionable' orders, and the feeling that something is not right.

I'm not so sure -- how many of us were aware of the existence of the GE program during the war? The plan was that the people of the Confederation would believe that the Union of Border Worlds had seceeded and then launched a devastating biological attack -- would they listen to this supposed horrific enemy's claims that they're innocent? We certainly put little credibility in Afghan claims that the United States is plotting to overthrow Islam...

Because this is a very special war - most Confed soldiers do not adhere to the Black Lance, and therefore do not share their beliefs. Yes, the atrocities supposedly commited by BW would go a long, long way to keep Confed soldiers loyal. But if Blair & co. had been willing to give the BWers the benefit of the doubt when they had themselves witnessed some of these 'atrocities', many people might find the bigger atrocities, such as bioweapons just as hard to swallow - if not more so, since everybody seems convinced that the BWers don't have the technology to match Confed.

In *our* mind it's a special war -- because we know what's going on. But the masses don't and probably wouldn't. Blair knew about such atrocities because he was party to them first hand -- the masses would not be. The idea is to credit the Border Worlds with the bioweapons... not to stand up and go "Oh, we attacked our own civilians with bio-weapons! Go fight for us!".

And remember, of course, that almost any 'what if the Black Lance won in WCIV and went on to succeed in their plans' means that Blair and company probably no longer exist (even ignoring the previously dammed what-if scenario: look at the democratic Confederation's willingness to execute its greatest war hero if he cannot prove absolutely that Tolwyn is behind all this...)

If it was anybody else, I'd agree. But this is Kruger, whose view of Confed isn't very positive in the best of situations. If Confed took up a full-scale war against BW - people with whom they had been friendly - don't you think that Kruger, whose Landreich is generally not on friendly terms with Confed, might see it in his own interest to intervene?

Not necessarily -- Kruger certainly has no love for the Confederation... but that's just one aspect of his personality: look at him in Fleet Action... he wasn't interested in helping the Confederation, even when they were faced with certain destruction.

Except that the BL seemed to be failing on those other fronts - look how quickly the BW found itself exchanging notes with Melek (who had every reason to disbelieve the BW). If it was this easy for Blair and Melek to catch on that they were being manoeuvred against each other, then clearly something is not working for the BL .

Again, it comes down to the fact that this is a very unique situation -- Blair and Melek have a history, they know to trust eachother, and Blair is one of the few people who have any direct knowledge of the project... and Blair happened to save Melek's life (and Melek happens to have formed a cult that worships Blair:)).

Look at the situation in the Kilrathi empire -- five way civil war... they're busy, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind seeing humans kill eachother.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF


(and Melek happens to have formed a cult that worships Blair:)).


Sorry, I'm curious...where does it describe Melek doing that? That's kinda funny, but cool!
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF

And remember, of course, that almost any 'what if the Black Lance won in WCIV and went on to succeed in their plans' means that Blair and company probably no longer exist (even ignoring the previously dammed what-if scenario: look at the democratic Confederation's willingness to execute its greatest war hero if he cannot prove absolutely that Tolwyn is behind all this...)

Well... Blair *did* commit treason... If someone commits treason and then shows up on Earth a little while later blabbering on about a conspiricy and flying one of the ships that's been commiting all these atrocities, one wouldn't expect them to be treated with a great amount of kindness unless they had a hell of a lot of proof that they weren't behind it.

TC
 
Back
Top